The works of James Abram Garfield

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

\ y§ g PROPERTY OF THE

ARTES SCIENTIA VERITAS

THE WORKS

OF

JAMES ABRAM GARFIELD

Vol. I.

(

-^^^^:iyi^^

S. ** '

THE WORKS

[James Abram Garfield

EDITED BV

BURKE A. HINSDALE

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

DDCim 4!&

CAirriON Please handle this volume with care.

The paper is very brittle.

/l

THE WORKS

OF

^MES Abram Garfield

EDITED BY

BURKE A. HINSDALE

PRBSIDBMT OF HISAM COLLBGB

VOL. I.

' .

^•*i

BOSTON
JAMES R. OSGOOD AND COMPANY

CLEVELAND: COBB, ANDREWS, & CO.

1882

Copyright, 1S8S,
By Lucretia R. Garfield.

Ai/ rights reserved.

Univbrsity Prbss:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge.

{ntet: folta frttctuK.

PREFACE.

FOR several years President Garfield had looked
forward to a time when he would be able to revise
and publish such of his speeches and writings as he
deemed worthy of a place in American literature. It
was a purpose that lay near his heart. What he would
have selected for publication, and how far he would have
carried revision, can now be only matters of speculation.
His untimely death, which defeated so many other plans
and dashed so many other hopes, prevented the realiza-
tion of this fond anticipation, and, through the partiality
of Mrs. Garfield, devolved the editorship of his works
upon me. An account of the manner in which I. have
discharged the trust seems called for.

The works were to be limited to matter that had been
published in its authors lifetime. All letters, manu-
scripts, etc. were reserved for future use. As to the han-
dling of this material, it should be said, first of all, that no
editor could have the same rights and powers over it that
belonged to him who produced it. Equally obvious are
the principles that should govern the selection of mate-
rial to be used. Everything of real value that deals with
questions of permanent interest, everything that is a
material part of the history of the times, and everj^thing

viii PREFACE.

that has a considerable personal interest flowing from
its author, as illustrating the man, should obviously be
included in the authorized edition of his Works. It
has seemed best not to draw upon such material as
exists produced before 1863, but to leave that to the
biographer, and to begin these Works with Mr. Gar-
field s entry into Congress. Accordingly these two vol-
umes are made up wholly of matter which, in some
form, has already been given to the public. They do
not by any means contain everything that President
Garfield said and wrote which has been published ; but
they give a full measure both of the quantity and qual-
ity of his published thought. All of his utterances had
life in them ; but it is believed that everything, or nearly
everything, is here presented, the value and interest of
which entitle it to admission to the popular edition of
his works. If anything has been omitted that should
have been included, it is owing either to the editors
having overlooked it, or to a false judgment of its value.

The larger number of these speeches, addresses, and
papers, making due allowance for needed verbal correc-
tions,, appear as they came from their authors hand.
From some of them portions have been omitted, since
they would but load down the work. These portions
may be divided into two classes ; namely, passages that
were of merely local or temporary interest, and passages
that contain what has been as well or better said in
some other place. Perhaps some critics will say that
the rule of exclusion, under both these heads, might have
been carried further with advantage. The following re-
marks will, therefore, be pertinent.

First More or less matter has been retained that is
not now and will never again be of immediate practical

PREFACE. IX

utility. If this is not true of whole compositions, it cer-
tainly is of parts of compositions. Some of the statis-
tical tables, and the analyses of national expenditures
found in the speeches on Appropriations, may be in-
stanced. But this matter should obviously be retained ;
first, because it is a part of the history of the times ; and
secondly, because it is part of the history of President
Garfield's mind and work, and will well illustrate his
mental habit and method of discussion.

Second. It has been found impossible wholly to pre-
vent repetition and overlapping. Mr. Garfield was emi-
nently a didactic statesman. He was a teacher both of
the National Legislature and of the public. He discussed
the same subject in many different places and at many
different times. He often discussed the same subject —
as Resumption of Specie Payments, and the Tariff —
in the House of Representatives, and before popular
assemblies. Naturally, therefore, perhaps it may be
said necessarily, his speeches and writings contain fre-
quent repetitions, not only of facts and arguments, but
also of diction and illustration. The widest as well
as the most frequent overlapping is found in his Con-
gressional speeches and popular addresses on political
subjects which were delivered at about the same time.
In these volumes, notwithstanding a constant effort to
reduce repetition to a minimum, repetitions will still be
found. Touching these it may be said that they could
not be omitted without impairing the integrity of the
composition, or weakening the force of the related parts
of the speech or paper. The reader will not however,
weary of these passages. He will find the same subject
coming up for discussion again and again ; but he will
find that, even upon those subjects which President

X PREFACE.

Garfield discussed most frequently and fully, the mat-
ter is almost always new and the diction fresh. And
even when he finds facts, arguments, or quotations that
he has met before, he will find them in new combina-
tions and answering new purposes.

Some readers may perhaps say that the historical
illustration of the text, at least in some cases, is exces-
sive. Such readers should remember, first, that the
works of our older statesmen have often suffered from
lack of such illustration ; secondly, that the subjects
with which President Garfield dealt, particularly in the
early part of his public life, are rapidly receding ; and,
thirdly, that no adequate life of him has yet appeared,
or is likely to appear for some time to come. Con-
cerning the second of these points, — the rapidity with
which events in our age pass into history, — a few wordis
may well be spoken. As long ago as Februarj', 1876,
he himself touched one phase of this subject. " More
than a million votes," said he, " will be cast at the next
Presidential election by men who were schoolboys in
their primers when the great financial measures of 1862
were adopted ; and they do not realize how fast or how
far the public mind has drifted. The logbook of this
extraordinary voyage cannot be read too often." In
fact, it is not extravagant to say that there are hun-
dreds of thousands of young Americans to-day who
know no more of the events of 1862 than they do of
the events of 1776, if indeed they know so much. If
the historical commentary is too full for some readers,
it is not for others ; and for none will it be too full in
the next generation.

Much labor has been bestowed upon the quotations,
both to verify them, and to give the appropriate refer-

PREFACE. XI

ences. Occasionally the matter quoted was ephemeral,
and search for the original was profitless ; but in all other
cases no reasonable effort has been spared to track
the quotation to its source. When it is considered that
the author's literary habits were rather those of a public
man than of a man of letters, and when it is remem-
bered that his speeches were often prepared and deliv-
ered under great stress both of time and labor, it will
not appear strange that in many cases he has left no
references to the originals he has quoted, and that they
cannot readily be found.

The question of arrangement has been carefully con-
sidered. This question was. Shall the topical or the
chronological method be followed.'^ Each course had
great and obvious advantages. Finally, however, the
chronological order, with departures few and slight, was
adopted, as doing best justice both to the history of
the author's mind and to the history of the country.
Those who wish to study his utterances upon special
subjects in group can, with the aid of the Contents and
the Index, readily group them for themselves.

The pamphlet editions of speeches and addresses
have been followed in all cases, where such editions
exist, to the exclusion of the reports found in news-
papers, and in the Congressional Globe and Record.

The thanks of both Mrs. Garfield and the editor are
tendered to Messrs. Houghton, Mifflin, & Co., publishers
of the Atlantic Monthly, to Mr. A. T. Rice, publisher
of the North American Review, and to A. J. Johnson
& Co., publishers of Johnson s New Universal Cyclo-
paedia, for their permission, so courteously granted, to
include in these works the articles credited to their
respective publications.

xii PREFACE.

It has been stated, or at least implied, above, that
everything heretofore published that has real value has
been included in these Works. One exception should be
made. There is a series of Minor Speeches, eminently
characteristic of their author, most of them delivered
between his nomination by the Chicago Convention and
his inauguration as President, which are well worthy of
collection and publication, but which can hardly be ad-
mitted, with propriety, to his Works. These have been
carefully prepared for publication by Col. A. F. Rock-
well, of the United States army, and they will shortly
appear in a worthy form, from the press of the Century
Company.

The preceding explanation made, I now ask leave to
transcribe some words of characterization spoken by the
Hon. James G. Blaine before the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate, in the hall of the House, Febru-
ary 27, 1882, and then to add some remarks of my own.

** As a parliamentary orator, as a debater on an issue squarely
joined, where the position had been chosen and the ground laid
out, Garfield must be assigned a very high rank. More, per-
haps, than any man with whom he was associated in public life,
he gave careful and systematic study to public questions, and
he came to every discussion in which he took part with elabo-
rate and complete preparation. He was a steady and indefati-
gable worker. Those who imagine that talent or genius can
supply the place or achieve the results of labor will find no en-
couragement in Garfield's life. In preliminary work he was apt,
rapid, and skilful. He possessed in a high degree the power
of readily absorbing ideas and facts, and, like Dr. Johnson, had
the art of getting from a book all that was of value in it by a
reading apparently so quick and cursory that it seemed like a
mere glance at the table of contents. He was a pre-eminently
fair and candid man in debate, took no petty advantage, stooped
to no unworthy methods, avoided personal allusions, rarely ap-
pealed to prejudice, did not seek to inflame passion. He had

PREFACE. xiii

a quicker eye for the strong point of his adversary than for his
weak point, and on his own side he so marshalled his weighty
arguments as to make his hearers forget any possible lack in
the complete strength of his position. He had a habit of stating
his opponent's side with such amplitude of fairness and such
liberality of concession, that his followers often complained that
he was giving his case away. But never in his prolonged par-
ticipation in the proceedings of the House did he give his case
away, or fail, in the judgment of competent and impartial listen-
ers, to gain the mastery

" Those unfamiliar with Garfield's industry, and ignorant of
the details of his work, may, in some degree, measure them by
the annals of Congress. No one of the generation of public
men to which he belonged has contributed so much that will
be valuable for future reference. His speeches are numerous,
many of them brilliant, all of them well studied, carefully
phrased, and exhaustive of the subject under consideration.
Collected from the scattered pages of ninety royal octavo vol-
umes of Congressional Records, they would present an invalu-
able compendium of the political history of the most important
era through which the national government has ever passed.
When the history of this period shall be impartially written,
when war legislation, measures of reconstruction, protection of
human rights, amendments to the Constitution, maintenance of
public credit, steps towards specie resumption, true theories
of revenue, may be reviewed, unsurrounded by prejudice and
disconnected from partisanism, the speeches of Garfield will be
estimated at their true value, and will be found to comprise
a vast magazine of fact and argument, of clear analysis and
sound conclusion. Indeed, if no other authority were accessi-
ble, his speeches in the House of Representatives from Decem-
ber, 1863, to June, 1880, would give a well-connected history
and complete defence of the important legislation of the sev-
enteen eventful years that constitute his parliamentary life.
Far beyond that, his speeches would be found to forecast many
great measures yet to be completed, — measures which he
knew were beyond the public opinion of the hour, but which
he confidently believed would secure popular approval within
the period of his own lifetime, and by the aid of his own
efforts." 1

* Eulogy on James Abram Garfield, (Boston, James R. Osgood & Co.,) pp.
28-30, and 35-37.

xiv PREFACE.

President Garfield's national political life began with
his entry into the House of Representatives, Decern-
ber 7, 1863, when he was thirty-two years old. It will
heighten one's appreciation of these volumes, and give
weight to the words of Mr. Blaine just quoted, to take a
view of his mental equipment for a legislator, and of
some of the larger conditions under which these Works
were produced.

He graduated at the age of twenty-five, with so much .
of general training and culture, and more of general
reading, than was implied by a first honor in a Massa-
chusetts college in 1856. He continued a constant and
general reader to the end of his life. From 1856 to
1 86 1 he was a laborious teacher in an academical school.
His experience there — not now referring to the admin-
istrative but to the strictly didactic function — was of
great value to him in his public life. His admirable
power of rhetorical exposition, both as a forensic and as
a popular orator, in so far as it was the result of art, is
largely traceable to his teacher experience. During the
same years he was in constant practice as a public
speaker on a great variety of subjects, — education, sci-
ence, literature, politics, and religion, — and this practice
was of equal service. He read law with a fellow-teacher
at Hiram, and was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1861.
In i860 and 1861 he served a term in the Ohio Senate,
and, although the youngest, he was one of the most
active and influential members on the floor. One or
two short speeches made in the Senate, which have been
preserved, and a larger number of committee reports
written by him, show that the Ohio Senator needed but
growth and maturity to become the national Represent-
ative. In the college literary society he had given much

PREFACE. XV

attention to parliamentary law ; he improved the oppor-
tunity that the Senate gave to add to his knowledge,
both theoretical and practical ; so that he entered the
House of Representatives a good general parliamen-
tarian.

Edward Gibbon, while bemoaning his service in the
Hampshire militia, said it was of much service to him
in composing his History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire.^ Much more was President Garfield's
service as a soldier of value to him as a legislator and
statesman. It made him thoroughly acquainted with
the organization and needs of the army, and with the
whole military side of the Rebellion. It caused him to
reflect the more deeply upon its political side, and to
revolve more carefully in his mind the whole question of
reconstruction. More than this, his military service
added very greatly to his knowledge of men and of pub-
lic business, and thereby much increased his mental and
moral equipment for his civil career. Collateral ques-
tions growing out of the war also engaged his attention
somewhat : thus, in his paper entitled " The Currency
Conflict," he speaks of studying finance with Secretary
Chase in the autumn of 1862 (while he was in Washing-
ton awaiting orders, and serving on a court-martial).

The only specific political question of the first magni-
tude that he had mastered before the war mutterines
were heard, had become obsolete when he entered
Congress. " Slavery in the Territories " was the great
question that the Republican party pressed upon the

1 " The discipline and evolutions of a modern battalion gave me a clearer notion
of the phalanx and the legion ; and the captain of the Hampshire Grenadiers (the
reader may smile) has not been useless to the historian of the Roman Empire/' —
Memoirs^ etc.

xvi PREFACE.

intellect and the conscience of the nation, from its organ-
ization in 1854 to its triumph in the Presidential election,
of i860. "What is the constitutional authority of Con-
gress over the domestic institutions of a Territory?" was
a question to be answered partly in view of the nature
and scope of the national Constitution, and partly in view
of the legislative precedents from 1787 onwards. This
was an interesting and vivifying line of study and dis-
cussion. Parallel with it ran the slavery question as a
whole ; for, although the Republican party denied to
themselves any right or purpose to interfere with slavery
in the States, Republican orators and writers did not con-
fine themselves, in discussion, to " Slavery in the Territo-
ries,*' but dwelt also upon the economical, political, and
moral features of slavery itself. Before the year i860,
although following other pursuits than politics, Mr. Gar-
field had possessed himself of all the points in that line
of discussion, — the Ordinance of 1787, the Missouri Com-
promise of 1820, the Wilmot Proviso of 1846, the Kansas-
Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857,
" Squatter Sovereignty," together with the points of infe-
rior interest. He was a full master of the Republican
argument, and had stated it many times over with much
power and eloquence. The Republican party applied
its cherished principle to the Territories in the act of
June 19, 1862, and then only slavery in the States re-
mained to be dealt with.

Republican opposition to slavery before i860, as an-
nounced in platforms, was an assertion of the right and
duty of Congress to prohibit its spread. This assertion
the Democratic party opposed, at first on old-fashioned
State Rights grounds ; but afterwards the party divided
into those who asserted that the Constitution of its own

PREFACE. xvii

force carried slavery into the Territories, that Congress
had nothing to do with it, and that the people .of the
Territory even could not prohibit it until they came to
form a State government, and those who asserted that
the whole question was left to the people of the Terri-
tory, and that they could prohibit it either by a law of
their local legislature or in the constitution of their
State government (which was the " Squatter Sovereign-
ty " doctrine of Mr. Douglas). The contest was, there-
fore, a revival, in a new form, of the old contest of na-
tional and local powers. Many Republicans of that day
had been brought up in the Democratic party, but the
original and the only original Republican doctrine readily
assimilated with what are called " national views " of the
Federal government. As a matter of course the war
gave the party a strong impulse in the same direction.
How different the spirit and the course of the party
would have been had there been no war, is a curious
subject of speculation. Here it suffices to say that Mr.
Garfield's political training up to 1861, as well as the
native cast of his mind, gave him a predisposition in
favor of Nationalism, and this predisposition the Rebel-
lion greatly strengthened.

The Southern threat of Secession, which so long hung
over the country, was not seriously regarded by Repub-
licans until the winter of 1860-61. They did not believe
there was going to be a war until war began; and then
their most philosophical statesman, Mr. Seward, said it
would be over in ninety days. But just so soon as the
Southern demonstrations following the election of Pres-
ident Lincoln began to impress the North, — and still
more as time wore on and words gave way to blows, —
the whole Northern people, and especially Republicans,

VOL. I. b

xviii PREFACE.

fell to studying the origin, history, and nature of our
national institutions, just as the American Colonists
on the verge of the Revolution, according to Edmund
Burke, fell to reading Blackstone's Commentaries and
other books of law.^ " How did the Union originate?"
" What is the history of the Constitution ? " " What is
the nature of the Federal bond ? " at once became com-
mon questions of absorbing interest. It was not suffi-
cient to oppose physical resistance to Secession ; it must
be shown that Secession had no support in either con-
stitutional or natural law. Now all patriotic men began
to cast about for the real elements of strength in the
National Constitution, and for the lessons for the hour
which real statesmen had taught. Mr. Garfield shared
in this impulse to the full, and was at once led into
the middle of a field of political reading and thought
which before he had barely touched.

For more than a half-century the country had been
moving steadily in one direction. Lord Macaulay wrote
to an American in 1857, "There can, I apprehend, be no
doubt that your institutions have, during the whole of
the nineteenth century, been constantly becoming more
Jeffersonian and less Washingtonian."^ "It is surely
strange," he added, "that, while this process has been
going on, Washington should have been exalted into a
god, and Jefferson degraded into a demon." The Eng-
lish lord seems to have understood that Jefferson was

^ " I have been told by an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business,
after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported
to the Plantations. The Colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them
for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone's Com-
mentaries in America as in England." — Speech on Conciliation with America,
March 22, 1775.

^ Letter to H. S. Randall, Esq., dated Holly Lodge, Kensington, January 18,
1857. See Appendix to Harper's edition of Trevelyan's " Life and Letters of Lord
Macaulay.**

PREFACE. xix

the foil to Washington. Indeed, he says his Ameri-
can correspondent intimated as much to him. But an
intelligent American need not be told that Jefferson
was rather the foil to Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson
believed in democracy and in a confederation; Hamil-
ton favored class influence and representation, but be-
yond any man of his time grasped and set forth the
idea of Nationalism. It was in the very beginning of
the war that the people of the North, as never before,
came to appreciate the fact stated by Guizot : " Ham-
ilton must be classed among the men who have best
known the vital principles and fundamental conditions of

a government There is not in the Constitution

of the United States an element of order, of force, of
duration, which he has not powerfully contributed to
introduce into it, and to cause to predominate." In the
year 1880, Mr. Garfield thus spoke of Hamilton : —

" I cannot look upon this great assemblage, and these old
veterans that have marched past us, and listen to the words
of welcome from our comrade who has just spoken, without
remembering how great a thing it is to live in this Union and
be a part of it. This is New York ; and yonder toward the
Battery, more than a hundred years ago, a young student of
Columbia College was arguing the ideas of the American Revo-
lution and American Union against the un-American loyalty to
monarchy of his college president and professors. By and by
he went into the patriot army, was placed on the staff of Wash-
ington, to fight the battles of his country, and while in camp,
before he was twenty-one years old, upon a drum-head he wrote
a letter which contained every germ of the Constitution of the
United States. That student, soldier, statesman, and great
leader of thought, Alexander Hamilton, of New York, made
this Republic glorious by his thinking, and left his lasting im-
press upon this the foremost State of the Union. And here on
this island, the scene of his early triumphs, we gather to-night,
soldiers of the new war, representing the same ideas of union,

XX PREFACE.

having added strength and glory to the monument reared by
the heroes of the Revolution." *

Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge says the ideas which JefiFerson
and Hamilton embodied have, in their conflicts, made
up the history of the United States. The democratic
principles of the one and the national principles of the
other have prevailed, and have sway to-day throughout
the length and breadth of the land. " But if we go a
step further," he says, " we find that the great Federalist
has the advantage. The democratic system of Jefferson
is administered in the form and on the principles of
Hamilton." ^ This is propounded as the point towards
which American political thought tends, — Democracy
and Nationalism. The expression well describes Mr.
Garfield's own h^bit of political thought. He had no
sympathy with Hamilton's aristocratical principles; he
was as pure a democrat as JefiFerson himself; but he
wanted the democratic system administered in the form
and on the principles of Nationalism. The thoughts of
Hamilton had great influence upon his mind and work.
His eye never wandered from the pole-star of nationality.
He loved Ohio, but he loved the Union more. As he
put it, he rendered allegiance to Washington, not by the
way of Columbus, but in an air line. His country, its
union, its greatness, its purity, its honor, its flag, was
with him an absorbing passion, — as much so as with
Hamilton himself. Hence it is pertinent to add that he
had a sort of literary acquaintance with this great states-
man before the war began ; but his real recognition of
his greatness, and of the strength of his political doc-
trines, dated from certain studies in the first half of the

* Speech to the " Boys in Blue/' delivered in New York, August 6, 1880.
> Alexander Hamilton, p. 283 (Boston, 1882).

PREFACE. xxi

year 1861. Accordingly, he entered Congress, and be-
fore that the army, not simply an ardent patriot, but a
student of history and politics, rooted and grounded in
those elements of order, of force, and of duration which,
according to the distinguished Guizot, Hamilton con-
tributed so powerfully to introduce into the Constitution,
and to cause to predominate.

From the foregoing summary it is easy to see what
was Mr. Garfield's mental equipment for a legislator.
The first and most valuable part of it was general, —
his native ability, his general education, his mental
habits, the training that he had received in educa-
tion, war, and politics, and his general views of our
American governments. National and State, though
these views, as a matter of course, he had not carried
out and applied to many specific questions. More nar-
rowly, he had mastered the Slavery question, upon
which, beyond supporting the Thirteenth Amendment,
he was never called to legislate ; he had a full grasp of
both the military and political sides of the Rebellion,
and had partially thought out some of the other ques-
tions that were so closely connected with the war. This
is about all. At this day there is nothing risked in say-
ing that the late President s most valuable public service
was in the field of economical discussion and legislation :
Currency, the Banks, Taxation, Appropriations, Resump-
tion, and related topics. The greatness and value of this
service is now largely recognized by the public; but it
will be surprising if the publication of these Works
does not greatly strengthen that recognition. Nor is
there anything risked in saying that, when he entered
Congress, he had given no systematic study to any of
these subjects. His grasp of economical science was

xxii PREFACE.

then little more than it was when he left college, al-
though his general reading had given him a wider range
of knowledge. The great knowledge of these subjects,
the sound conclusions, the just principles, of which these
volumes are such striking evidences, were gathered and
wrought out after his Congressional life began. The
same may be said of nearly all the subjects that are here
discussed. That he not only was able to master these
great and difficult financial questions, but was always
able to defend sound principles with new arguments,
fresh information, and original illustrations, at the same
time that he was dealing with the other questions, both
many and difficult, of those eventful years, as well as
maintaining a lively interest in all public questions and
bearing a part in the discussion of many of them, is
at once a striking proof of the greatness of his powers,
of the thoroughness of his training, and of the zeal and
conscientiousness with which he devoted himself to his
legislative duties.

With the mental equipment now described, Mr. Gar-
field entered the national House of Representatives.
He at once took an active part in the debates, as the
Index of the Congressional Globe for the first session of
the Thirty-eighth Congress shows. The four speeches
whose titles are found at the head of the Contents of
this first volume were made that session. This activity
was kept up, with some fluctuation of course, through
the twenty-two sessions that he sat in Congress. It will
be observed that, with a few exceptions, they are his
major Congressional speeches that are presented in
these Works. Only a few of the far greater number
of minor speeches have been drawn out of the Globe and
Record ; and these have been given because they deal

PREFACE. xxiii

with important subjects, and because they show the
speaker's powers in such efforts. Of their kind, these
minor speeches are as perfect as the greater and better-
known speeches upon which his reputation as a debater
rests. Nor must it be supposed that in Congress he was
simply a speech-maker; he was always a conscientious
and laborious committeeman. Then the reader must
remember that every year, from 1864 to 1879, with the
single exception of 1867 when he was in Europe, he
took an active part in each political canvass ; his ser-
vices were in wide request in Ohio and in other States,
and he sometimes made as many as sixty or seventy
addresses in a single campaign. For a number of years
he began his annual canvass with a carefully prepared
speech, which was commonly printed from his own man-
uscript. This was of the nature of a report to his con-
stituents, or to the people of Ohio, of the political history
of the year, and especially of legislation. The campaign
addresses from 1866 to 1872 inclusive constitute this
series. By the side of these lines of activity must be
mentioned his not inconsiderable law practice. In all,
his cases in the United States courts were some thirty in
number, many of them involving new and difficult ques-
tions, which demanded much time and study for their
mastery. The three legal arguments that were fully re-
ported have a place in these volumes. With all the
rest, he was a generous respondent to calls to literary,
ceremonial, and commemorative occasions, and a not
unfrequent contributor to the press. Still, the occa-
sional addresses and papers that are here brought to-
gether were the intellectual recreations of a man whose
work lay in other fields.
The foregoing remarks have not been made simply to

xxiv PREFACE.

generalize the labor that produced these works, and to
enlarge the reader's view of this busy man and life. It
is hoped that, so far as they go, they will set President
Garfield boldly and clearly before the eye of the reader.
Besides, they have an obvious bearing upon the works
themselves. The reader must remember the magnitude
of the labor that President Garfield performed, and the
conditions under which he performed it. These com-
positions are not the essays of a scholar, working at his
leisure in his library ; they are, with few exceptions, the
contributions to current discussion of a very busy man,
who spoke on living questions because he had some-
thing to say. He had extraordinary power in the organ-
ization of thought, shown both in the excellence and
rapidity of his execution ; but many of these speeches
were made under circumstances that taxed his power
to the utmost. He was a hard reader, had a retentive
memory, and was careful to keep his knowledge within
reach ; but, as a matter of course, he often had to use
new information that was hastily gathered, or old infor-
mation that needed further verification.

Mr. A. R. Spofford, the accomplished head of the Li-
brary of Congress, who well knew Garfield's mental hab-
its, has said, in an admirable paper on his intellectual
character and methods : " He was never chary of asking
assistance in laying out the materials for any work he
had to do. He made no mystery of what he was about ;
concealed nothing of his purposes or methpds; drew
freely upon his friends for suggestions ; used his family,
secretaries, and librarians to look up authorities, or, if
he found the time, he looked them up himself. When
he had examined the field as thoroughly as he was
able, he organized his subject in his own mind, and,

PREFACE. XXV

if the speech was to be in Congress, he seldom wrote
more than a few of its leading outlines, leaving the sub-
stance, as well as the diction, to the occasion." This is
very true and just. Mr. Spofford also says : " He was
ever most solicitous to verify every fact and quotation,
and, after speaking ex tempore, he was anxious until he
had carefully corrected the proofs." ^ This, too, is true
and just ; he was a conscientious man in all that he un-
dertook. But the pressure of work or the shortness of
time for preparation often made the verification of the
fact impossible; he frequently had to correct the proofs
in extreme haste, perhaps at midnight when worn out,
and sometimes he could not correct them at all. A
considerable part of the matter collected in these vol-
umes never had any real revision from its author. I
have indeed, verified many of the facts, dates, statistics,
etc., as well as revised the diction when revision seemed
essential ; but I fear that my work will be found a poor
substitute for the scholarship, care, and skill that the
author would have brought to the task had he lived to
be his own editor.

The preparation of these Works for publication was
intrusted to me by Mrs. Garfield. I have earnestly

sought to justify her confidence. It has been a labor
of love ; and no effort has been spared, no toil shrunk

from, that seemed necessary to its fit accomplishment.

I do not doubt that defects and blemishes in my work

will be discovered ; but if the American people shall

think that upon the whole it is not unworthy of the

text, I will be content. Nothing more need be said by

way of explaining these Works, or the manner of their

* •* A Tribute of Respect from the Literary Society of Washington to its late
President, James Abram Garfield,'* pp. i6, 17, 26.

XXVI PREFACE.

preparation for publication. I am not called upon to
discuss President Garfield, or even to characterize him
as thinker, orator, writer, or statesman. Now that I
have put these speeches, addresses, arguments, and pa-
pers in the best form that .1 could, and accompanied
them with such historical commentary as seemed to me
called for, I submit the whole to that public upon which
the distinguished and lamented author so deeply im-
pressed himself.

B. A. HINSDALE.

Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio,
September i, 1882.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.

Pagb

Confiscation of the Property of Rebels i

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 28, 1864.

Enrolling and Calling out the National Forces .... 19

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 25, 1864.

The Sale of Surplus Gold 35

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, February 18 and March
15, 1864.

Free Commerce between the States 42

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 24 and 31, 1864.

1^ Cabinet Officers in Congress 61

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 26, 1865.

The Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery ... 73

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, January 13, 1865.

Suffrage and Safety 85

Oration delivered at Ravenna, Ohio, July 4, 1865.

Restoration of the Southern States 95

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, February i, 1866.

American Shipping 118

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, February i, 1866, and
May 25, 1870.

The National Bureau of Education 126

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1866.

xxviii CONTENTS OF VOLUME L

The Jurisdiction of Military Commissions 143

Argument made before the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex
parte L. P. Milligan, W. A. Bowles, and Stephen Horsey, March 6, 1866.

The Public Debt and Specie Payments 183

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 16, 1866.

The Memory of Abraham Lincoln 202

Remarks made in the House of Representatives. April 14, 1866.

The Tariff Bill of 1866 205

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, July 10, 1866.

National Politics 216

Speech delivered at Warren, Ohio, September i, 1866.

Reconstruction 243

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

College Education 265

Address delivered before the Literary Societies of Hiram College, Hiram,
Ohio, June 14, 1867.

The Currency 284

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, May 15, 1868.
Strewing Flowers on the Graves of Union Soldiers . . . 322

Oration delivered at Arlington, Virginia, May 30, 1868.

Taxation of United States Bonds 327

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, July 15, 1868.

Mr. Stevens and the Five-Twenty Bonds 356

Personal Explanation made in the House of Representatives, July 23, 1868.

Indian Affairs 364

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

Commissioner Wells's Report 383

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, January 19, 186^

Political Issues of 1868 390

Speech delivered at Orwell, Ohio, August 28, 1868.

The Reduction of the Army 408

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, February 9, 1869.

The Smithsonian Institution 430

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, March i, 1869.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I. xxix

The Medtcal and Surgical History of the Rebellion. . . 434

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, March 2, 1869.

Strengthening the Pubuc Credit 439

Remarks made in the House ol Representatives, March j, 1869

The Ninth Census 443

Remarks made in the House of Representatives, April 6, 1869.

The Ninth Census 450

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, December 16^ 1869.

The Canvass in Ohio . . . . ' 477

Speech delivered at Mount Vernon, Ohio, August 14, 1869.

Civil Service Reform 499

Remarks made in the House of Representatives on various Occasions.

The Tariff Bill of 1870 520

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, April i, 1870.

Currency and the Banics 543

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 7, 187a

Currency and the Banks 571

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 15, 187a •

Currency and the Banks 584

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, June 29, 1870.

Joshua R. Giddings 593

Address delivered at Jefferson, Ohio, July 25, 1870, at the Dedication of
the Giddings Monument.

Political Issues of 1870 610

Speech delivered at Mansfield, Ohio, August 27, 1870.

American Agriculture 632

Address delivered at the Northern Ohio Fair, Cleveland, Ohio, Octo-
ber 12, 1S70.

General George H. Thomas: his Life and Character . . 643

Oration delivered before the Society of the Army of the Cumberland, at
the Fourth Annual Reunion, Cleveland, Ohio, November #5, 1870.

The Right to originate Revenue Bills 674

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March 3, 187 1.

XXX CONTENTS OF VOLUME T.

The Ku-Klux Act 702

Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, April 4, 1871.

The Ohio Campaign of 187 i 732

Speech delivered in Mozart Hall, Cincinnati, August 24, 187 1.

The Fourteenth Amendment and Representation .... 761
Remarks made in the House of Representatives, December 12, 187 1.

APPENDIX.

I. Letter to Major- General Rosecrans 767

II. Letter to Secretary Chase 772

III. Remarks on General Rosecrans 775

THE WORKS

OF

JAMES A. GARFIELD.

CONFISCATION OF THE PROPERTY

OF REBELS

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 28, 1864.

The confiscation of property as a punishment for treason attracted the
attention of Congress early in the war. August 6, 186 1, an act was ap-
proved, the first section of which authorized and directed the seizure, con-
fiscation, and condemnation of property, of whatever kind or description,
that should be purchased, acquired, sold, given, used, or employed with
intent to aid, abet, or promote insurrection or resistance to the laws of
the United States. The fourth section of the same act declared that all
claims to the labor or service of any slave should be forfeited, provided said
slave should, by the requirement or the permission of his owner, or his
ov^-ner's agent, take up arms against the United States, or perform labor in
or upon any fort, navy- yard, dock, armory, ship, intrenchment, or in any
military or naval service whatsoever against the government and lawful
authority of the United States. July 17, 1862, a much more rigorous and
sweepting act was approved. It provided that every person adjudged
guilty of treason against the United States should suffer death, or, at the
discretion of the court, be imprisoned not less than five years, be fined not
less than ten thousand dollars (the fine to be levied on all property, real
and personal, excluding slaves), and all his slaves, if any, be declared and
made free. This act also provided that, to insure the speedy termination
of the rebellion then in progress, it should be made the duty of the Presi-
dent to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks,

VOL. I. I

2 CONFISCATION OF REBEJL PROPERTY.

credits, and effects of certain enumerated classes of persons (six in num-
ber), and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for t|je
support of the Army of the United States. While this bill was pending
in the two Houses, special attention was called to clause 2, section 3,
Article III. of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to
declare the punishment of treason ; but no attainder of treason shall work
corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person
attainted." It became known that President Lincoln held that the
phrase " except during the life of the person attainted " limited the time
for which the forfeiture of real estate might be worked, rather than the
period within which it might be worked. The President, supposing that
the bill would pass in a form disregarding this limitation, prepared a veto
in advance, a copy of which he subsequently ^ laid before the House of
Representatives for their information. Congress passed the bill in the
form proposed, but to avert the veto sent with the bill to the White
House a joint resolution framed to remove the President's objections,
of which this was the last clause : " Nor shall any punishment or pro-
ceedings under said act be so construed as to work a forfeiture of the
real estate of the offender beyond his natural life." Considering the bill
and the resolution "as being substantially one," President Lincoln ap-
proved and signed both.

January 7, 1864, Mr. J. F. Wilson of Iowa introduced into the House
of Representatives a joint resolution explanatory of the Act of July 1 7,
1862, which as reported back from the Judiciary Committee, omitting a
proviso that is immaterial for the present purpose, read thus : " That the
last clause of a joint resolution explanatory of * An Act to suppress in-
surrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the
property of rebels, and for other purposes,' approved July 17, 1862, be,
and the same hereby is, so amended as to read, * Nor shall any punish-
ment or proceeding under said act be so construed as to work a forfeit-
ure of the estate of the offender contrary to the Constitution of the
United States.' " As in 1862, the clause of the Constitution respecting
forfeitures was a main point in the debate.

While Mr. S. S. Cox, then of Ohio, now of New York, was speaking,
January 14, Mr. Garfield said : " I wish to ask my colleague a practical
rather than a legal question. I wish to know whether the objection he
raises to this resolution is not itself obnoxious to this objection. We
punish men for civil and for criminal offences, great and small, in all the
higher and lower courts of the country, by taking their property from
them, so that their children can never have the benefit of it after the
parent's death. Now, while we do this constantly in our courts, by civil
and criminal processes, does not my colleague propose to make an ex-
ception in favor of the crime of treason ? Why should not the children

' July i7i 1862.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 3

of traitors suffer the same kind of loss and inconvenience as the chil-
dren of thieves and other felons do? I ask the gentleman whether his
position does not involve this great absurdity and injustice ? "

In reply to a question by Mr. Cox, Mr. Garfield said : " I do not see
that in this resolution we do break the Constitution. If the gentleman
can show me that it violates the Constitution, I will vote against it with
him, even though every member of my party votes for it ; that makes no
difference to me. I will say, however, that I had supposed that the
intention of that clause of the Constitution was to prevent the punish-
ment of treason when an individual was declared guilty of it after his
death. I had supposed that that was the purpose of it, and if so, it
seems to me that this bill is not obnoxious to the objection which the
gentleman raises to it.*'

January 28, the House still having under consideration the Wilson
resolution, Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech. February 5,
the House passed the resolution. No action was had in the Senate.
This was the end of the resolution, and also the end of all serious
attempts to legislate further upon the confiscation of the property of
rebels for the punishment of treason.

MR. SPEAKER, — I had not intended to ask the attention
of the House, or to occupy its time on this question of
confiscation at all; but some things have been said touching its
military aspects which make it proper for me to trespass upon
the patience of the House even at this late period of the discus-
sion. Feeling that, fti some small degree, I represent on this
floor the army of the republic, I am the more emboldened to
speak on the subject before us. I have been surprised that, in
so long and so able a discussion, so little reference has been
made to the merits of the resolution itself. Very much of the
debate has had reference to questions which I believe, with all
deference to the better judgment and maturcr experience of
others, arc not germane to the subject before the House.

In the wide range of discussion, the various theories of the
legal and political status of the rebellious States have been
examined, — whether they exist any longer as States, and, if
they do, whether they are in the Union or out of it. It is per-
haps necessary that we take ground upon that question as pre-
liminary to the discussion of the resolution itself. Two theories,
differing widely from each other, have been proposed ; but I
cannot consider either of them as wholly correct. I cannot

4 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

agree with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania,^ who
acknowledges that these States are out of the Union and now
constitute a foreign people. Nor can I, on the other hand,
agree with those who believe that the insurgent States are not
only in the Union, but have lost none of their rights under the
Constitution and laws of the Union.

Our situation affords a singular parallel to that of the people
of Great Britain in their great revolution of the seventeenth
century. From time immemorial it was the fiction of English
law that the kingship was immortal, hereditary, and inalienable;
that the king was " king by the grace of God " ; that he could
do no wrong, and that his throne could never be vacant. But
the logic of events brought these theories to a practical test
James II. left the throne, threw the great seal of the kingdom
into the Thames, and, fleeing from his own people, took refuge
in France. The great statesmen of the realm took counsel
together on some of the very questions which we are discussing
to-day. One said, ** The king has abdicated ; we will put
another in his place." Another said, "The crown is hereditary;
we must put the heir in his place." The men of books and
black-letter learning answered, Nemo est hares viventis, "The
king is alive, and can have no heir." Another said, " We will
appoint a regent, and consider the kingship in abeyance until
the king returns." The people said, " We will have a king, but
not James." Through all this struggle two facts were apparent:
the throne was vacant, and their king was unworthy to fill it.
The British nation cut through the entanglement of words, and
filled it with the man of their choice. We are taught by this
that, whenever a great people desire to do a thing which ought
to be done, they will find the means of doing it.

In this government we have thrown off the kingly fiction,
but there is another which we are following as slavishly as
ever England followed that. Here, corporations are more than
kings. It is the doctrine of our common law (if we may be said
to have a common law) that corporations have neither con-
sciences nor souls ; that they cannot commit crimes ; that they
cannot be punished ; and that they are immortal. These prop-
ositions are being applied to the rebel States. They are corpo-
rations of a political character, bodies corporate and politic;
they are immortal, and cannot be touched by the justice of law,

* Mr. Stevens.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 5

or by the power of an outraged government. They hover
around our borders like malignant, bloody fiends, carrying
death in their course ; and yet we are told they cannot be pun-
ished nor their ancient rights be invaded. The people of the
South, under the direction of these phantom States, are moving
the powers of earth and hell to destroy this government. They
plead the order of their States as their shield from punishment,'
and the States plead the impunity of soulless corporations. But
the American people will not be deluded by these theories, nor
waste time in discussing them. They are striking through all
shams with the sword, and are finding a practical solution, as
England did. And what is that practical solution? The Su-
preme Court of the United States has aided us, at this point, in
the Prize Cases decided on March 3, 1863.^ It is there said in
effect —

"That since July 13, 1861, the United States have had full belligerent
rights against all persons residing in the districts declared by the Presi-
dent's proclamation to be in rebellion."

" That the laws of war, whether that war be civil or inter gentesy con-
vert every citizen of the hostile state into a public enemy, and treat him
accordingly, whatever may have been his previous conduct."

"That all the rights derived from the laws of war may now, since
1 86 1, be lawfully and constitutionally exercised against all the citizens
of the districts in rebellion."

The court decided that the same laws of war which apply to
hostile foreign states are to be applied to this rebellion. But in
so deciding they do not decide that the rebellious States are,
therefore, a foreign people. I do not hold it necessary to admit
that they are a foreign people. I do not admit it. I claim, on
the contrary, that the obligations of the Constitution still hang
over them; but by their own act of rebellion they have cut
themselves off from all rights and privileges under the Constitu-
tion. When the government of the United States declared the
country in a state of war, the rebel States came under the laws
of war. By their acts of rebellion they swept away every ves-
tige of their civil and political rights under the Constitution of
the United States. Their obligations still remained; but the
reciprocal rights which usually accompany obligations they had
forfeited.

I 2 Black, 635.

6 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

The question then lies open before us, In a state of war,
under the laws of war, is this resolution constitutional and wise?
I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the only constitutional question in-
volved in the resolution is whether this government, in the
exercise of its rights as a belligerent, under the laws of war, can
or cannot punish armed rebels and confiscate their estates, both
personal and real, for life and forever. This is the only con-
stitutional question before us.

Gentlemen have learnedly discussed the constitutional powers
of Congress to punish the crime of treason. It matters not
how that question is decided ; in my judgment, it has no bear-
ing whatever on the resolution before the House. I will only
say in passing, that the Supreme Court has never decided that
the clause of the Constitution relating to treason prohibits for-
feiture beyond the lifetime of persons attainted. No man in
this House has found any decision of the Supreme Court giving
the meaning to the Constitution which gentlemen on the other
side of the chamber have given to it. They can claim no more
than that the question is res non adjudicata. The arguments
we have heard are sufficient evidence to me, at least, that the
framers of our Constitution intended that Congress should have
full power to define treason, and provide for its punishment;
but the rule of the English common law, which permitted
attainder, corruption of blood, and forfeiture to be declared
after the death of the accused, should not prevail in this coun-
try. To me the clause carries an absurdity on its face, if it be
interpreted to mean that treason, the highest crime known to
law, shall be punished with less severity, so far as it regards the
estate of the criminal, than any other crime or misdemeanor
whatsoever. But, as I before said, the present law of confiscation
is based on the rights of belligerents under the laws of war.

The gentleman from New York^ a few days since, in his
address to the House, gave us a history of the rebellions which
have occurred in this country. I wish to call his attention to
one of our rebellions, a very important one, which he did not
notice, and in which the question of confiscation was very fully
and very practically discussed. This fact has not, I believe,
been brought to the attention of the House. Do gentlemen
forget that the Union had its origin in revolution, and that con-
fiscation played a very important part in that revolution? It

* Mr. Fernando Wood.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 7

was a civil war; and the Colonies were far more equally divided
on the question of loyalty than the States of the South now are
on the questions of to-day. Many of the thirteen Colonies had
almost equal parties for and against England in that struggle.
In New York the parties were of nearly equal strength. In
South Carolina there were probably more Royalists than Whigs.
Twenty thousand American Tories appeared in the armies
against us in the Revolutionary struggle. Thirty Tory regiments
served in the British line. Our fathers had to deal with these
men, and with their estates. How did they solve the problem?
I have looked into the history of its solution, and find it full
of instruction. Every one of the thirteen States, with a single
exception, confiscated the real and personal property of Tories
in arms. They did it, too, by the recommendation of Congress.
Not only so, but they drove Tory sympathizers from the coun-
try; they would not permit them to remain upon American
soil. Examine the statutes of every State, except New
Hampshire, where the tide of battle never reached, and you
will find confiscation laws of the most thorough and sweeping
character. When our commissioners were negotiating the
treaty of peace, the last matter of difference and discussion was
that of confiscated property. The British commissioners urged
the restoration of confiscated estates, but Jay and Franklin and
their colleagues defended the right of confiscation with great
ability, and refused to sign the treaty at all if that was to be a
condition. While these negotiations were pending, the States
memorialized Congress to guard against any concession on the
point in dispute, and our commissioners were instructed by
Congress to admit no conditions which would compel the res-
toration of confiscated estates. The final settlement of the ques-
tion will be found in the fifth article of the treaty of peace as
it now stands recorded, which provided that Congress should
recommend to the several Colonies to restore confiscated prop-
erty ; but it was well understood by both parties that it would
not be done. Congress passed the resolution of recommenda-
tion as a matter of form ; but no State complied, or was ex-
pected to comply with it. It was, however, provided that no
further confiscations should be made, and that Tories should be
permitted to remain in America for twelve months after the
treaty.
In the debates of the English House of Lords in 1783, up-

8 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

on the treaty of peace, Lord Shelbume frankly admitted that
the Loyalists were left without better provision being made for
them, ** from the unhappy necessity of public affairs, which in-
duced the extremity of submitting the fate of their property
to the discretion of their enemies." " I have," he said, " but
one answer to give the House; it is the answer I gave my
own bleeding heart. A part must be wounded, that the whole
of the empire may not perish. If better terms could be had,
think you, my lord, that I would not have embraced them?
/ had but the alternative either to accept the terms proposed or
continue the war!* Lord Shelburne also declared, that " with-
out one drop of blood spilt, and without one fifth of the ex-
pense of one year's campaign, happiness and ease can be given
them in as ample a manner as these blessings were ever in their
enjoyment." The Lord Chancellor defended the treaty on other
grounds, but said, if necessary, " Parliament could take cogni-
zance of their case, and impart to each suffering individual that
relief which reason, perhaps policy, certainly virtue and reli-
gion, required." ^

Thus Revolutionary confiscation passed into history by the
consent and agreement of both belligerents. Its principles
were also defended by our government after the adoption of
the Constitution. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of
State, in answer to some complaints of the British government,
reviewed the whole question at great length and with great
ability. I ask my colleague ^ to notice these extracts relating
to belligerent rights, which he has just been discussing.

" It cannot be denied that the state of war strictly permits a nation to
seize the property of its enemies found within its own limits or taken in
war, and in whatever form it exists, whether in action or possession.
This is so perspicuously laid down by one of the most respectable
writers on subjects of this kind, that I shall use his words : * Since it is
a condition of war, that enemies may be deprived of all their rights, it
is reasonable that everything of an enemy's, found among his enemies,
should change its owner and go to the treasury. It is, moreover, usually
directed, in all declarations of war, that the goods of enemies, as well
those found among us as those taken in war, shall be confiscated. If we
follow the mere right of war, even immovable property may be sold and
its price carried into the treasury, as is the custom with movable property.

1 See Sabine's American Loyalists, Vol. I. pp. 101, 102 (Boston, 1864).

2 Mr. Finck of Ohio.

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 9

But in almost all Europe, it is only notified that their profits, during the
war, shall be received by the treasury ; and the war being ended, the
immovable property itself is restored, by agreement, to the former
owner.' " ^

"Exile and Confiscations. — After premising that these are lawful
acts of war, I have shown that the fifth article [of the treaty of 1 783]
was recommendatory only, its stipulations being, not to restore the confis-
cations and exiles, but to recommend to the State Legislatures to restore
them ; — that this word, having but one meaning, establishes the intent
of the parties ; and, moreover, that it was particularly explained by the
American negotiators that the Legislatures would be free to comply with
the recommendation or not, and probably would not comply ; — that the
British negotiators so understood it ; — that the British ministry so un-
derstood it ; and the members of both Houses of Parliament y as well
those who approved as who disapproved the article." '

Thus the Revolutionary fathers, both before and after the
adoption of the Constitution, defended confiscation.

The Tories who fled to England called upon the Crown for
support. A commission was appointed to examine their claims
and provide for their wants. It is a significant fact, that of the
vast numbers of Tories perhaps not a thousand remained in
this country after the war. The people would not endure their
presence. They were driven out, and took refuge in all quar-
ters of the globe. They colonized New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, and were scattered along the borders of Canada. The
States would show no favor, even to the few who came back
under the provisions of the treaty, and refused them the right
of voting, or of holding office or property. It was well known
that there could be no peace between them and our loyal
people. Their history is a sad record of infamy, obscurity,
and misery. Some exhibited their vengeful hate long after the
war was over. Girty and his associates, who murdered Craw-
ford in the Indian wars of 1782, were Tories of the Revolution.
Bowles and Panton, leaders among the Creek Indians, and who
started the Florida troubles, which resulted in a long and bloody
conflict in the swamps of that region, were Tories. As a class,
they went out with the brand of Cain upon them, and were not
permitted to return. One State alone relented. South Caro-

* Jefferson's Works, Vol. III. p. 369. The writer quoted by Jefferson is Bynker-
shoek.

« Ibid., Vol. III. p. 423.

A

lO CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

Una passed an act of oblivion, restored a large part of the con-
fiscated estates, and permitted the Tories after a short time to
vote and hold office. Her policy has borne its bitter fruit.
Her government has hardly been entitled to be called republi-
can. The spirit of monarchy and disloyalty has ruled her coun-
cils, and has at last plunged the republic into the most gigantic
and bloody of rebellions.

Let us take counsel from the wisdom of our fathers. Is it
probable that the same men who confiscated all the property of
armed Tories would, a few years later, establish it as a funda-
mental doctrine of the Constitution that no confiscation can be
made beyond the lifetime of the attainted traitor? Is it proba-
ble that men who had just done what they stubbornly held to
be right should enact as a part of the supreme law of the land
that the same thing should never be done again ?

I now come more directly to consider the policy involved
in the resolution before us. Landed estates, Mr. Speaker,
are inseparably connected with the peculiar institution of the
South. It is well known that the power of slavery rests in
large plantations; that the planter's capital drives the poor
whites to the mountains, where liberty always loves to dwell,
and to the swamps and by-places of the South ; and that the
bulk of all the real estate is in the hands of the slave-owners
who have plotted this great conspiracy. Let me give you an
instance of this, one of a thousand that might be given. In the
town of Murfreesboro', Rutherford County, Tennessee (a place
made sacred and glorious forever by the valor of our army),
there are 14,493 acres of land under enclosure owned by six-
teen men ; three of the sixteen men own more than ten thou-
sand of the acres. One of the three owns half of the whole
township of Murfreesboro*. And this is only a specimen of
what these men of the South are to the lands of the South.
Only a few hundred men own the bulk of the land in any
Southern State ; they hold the lands and own the slaves. These
men plotted the rebellion and thrust it upon us. They have
had the political power in their hands, and if you permit them
to go back to their lands they will have it again. The laws of
nature, the laws of society, cannot be overcome by the resolu-
tions of Congress. Grant a general amnesty, let these men go
back to their lands, and they will again control the South.
They have so long believed themselves born to rule, that they

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. u

will rule the poor man in the future, as in the past, with a rod
of iron. The landless man of the South has learned the lesson
of submission so well that when he is confronted by a landed
proprietor he begins to be painfully deferential ; he is facile and
dependent, and less a man, than if he stood on a little spot of
God's earth covered by his own title-deed.

Sir, if we want a lasting peace, if we want to put down this
rebelHon so that it shall stay forever put down, we must put
down its guilty cause ; we must put down slavery ; we must take
away the platform on which slavery stands, — the great landed
estates of the armed rebels of the South. Strike that platform
from beneath its feet, take that land away, and divide it into
homes for the men who have saved our country. I put it to
this House as a necessity which stares us in the face. What, let
me ask you, will you do with the battle-fields of the South ?
Who own them? Who own the red field of Stone River? Two
or three men own it all. And who are these two or three men?
Rebels, every one, — one of them a man who once sat in this
chamber, but who is now a leader in the rebel army. Will you
let hint come back and repossess his land ? Will you ask his
permission when you go to visit the grave of your dead son who
sleeps in the bosom of that sacred field? If the principles of
the gentlemen on the other side be carried out, there is not one
of the great battle-fields of the war (save Gettysburg, which lies
yonder on this side of the line) that will not descend for all time
to come to the sons of rebels, — to men whose fathers gained a
bad eminence by fighting against their country, and who will
love those fathers for affection's sake, and love rebellion for their
fathers' sake. God forbid that we should ever visit those spots,
made sacred by the blood of so many thousand brave men, and
see our enemies holding the fields and ploughing the graves of
our brethren, while the sweat of slaves falls on the sod which
ought to be forever sacred to every American citizen !

The history of opinion and its changes in the army is a very
interesting one. When the war broke out, men of all parties
sprang to arms by a common impulse of generous patriotism, —
which I am glad to acknowledge here in the presence of those in
whose hearts that impulse seems now to be utterly dead. I
remember to have said to a friend when I entered the army,
"You hate slavery; so do I; but I hate disunion more. Let
us drop the slavery question and fight to sustain the Union.

12 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

When the supremacy of the government has been re-established,
we will attend to the other question." I said to another, " You
love slavery. Do you love the Union more? If you do, go
with me ; we will let slavery alone, and fight for the Union.
When that is saved, we will take up our old quarrel, if there is
anything left to quarrel about." I started out with that position,
taken in good faith, as did thousands of others of all parties.
But the army soon found that, do what it would, the black
phantom met it everywhere, — in the camp, in the bivouac, on
the battle-field, — and at all times. It was a ghost that would
not be laid. Slavery was both the strength and the weakness of
the enemy : his strength, for it tilled his fields and fed his legions ;
his weakness, for in the hearts of slaves dwelt dim prophecies
that their deliverance from bondage would be the outcome of
the war. Mr. Seward well says, in an official despatch to our
Minister at the Court of St. James, " Everywhere the American
general receives his most useful and reliable information from
the negro, who hails his coming as the harbinger of freedom."
These ill-used men came from the cotton-fields; they swam
rivers, they climbed mountains, they came through jungles in
the darkness and storms of the night, to tell us that the enemy
was coming here or coming there. They were our true friends
in every case. There has hardly been a battle, a march, or any
important event of the war, where the friend of our cause, the
black man, has not been found truthful and helpful, and always
devotedly loyal. The conviction forced itself upon the mind
of every soldier that behind the rebel army of soldiers the black
army of laborers was feeding and sustaining the rebellion, and
there could be no victory till its main support should be taken
away.

" You take my house when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house.'*

The rebellion falls when you take away its chief prop, slavery
and landed estates.

Gentlemen on the other side, you tell me that this is an Aboli-
tion war. If you please to say so, I grant it. The rapid cur-
rent of events has made the army of the republic an Abolition
army. I can find in the ranks a thousand men who are in
favor of sweeping away slavery to every dozen that desire to
preserve it. They have been where they have seen its malevo-
lence, its baleful effects upon the country and the Union, and

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY, 13

they demand that it shall be swept away. I never expect to
discuss the demerits of slavery again, for I deem it unnecessary.
The fiat has gone forth, and it is dead unless the body-snatchers
on the other side of this House shall give it galvanic life. You
may say to me that slavery is a divine institution; you may
prove to your own satisfaction from the word of God, perhaps,
that slavery is a beneficent institution. I will say to you that
all this may be entirely satisfactory to your mind, but your be-
loved friend slavery is no more. This is a world of bereave-
ments and changes, and I announce to you that your friend has
departed. Hang the drapery of mourning on the bier ! Go in
long and solemn procession after the hearse, if you please, and
shed your tears of sorrow over the grave ; but life is too short
to allow me to waste an hour in listening to your tearful eulogy
over the deceased.

I come now to consider another point in this question. I
hold it a settled truth that the leaders of this rebellion can never
live in peace in this republic. I do not say it in any spirit of
vindictiveness, but as a matter of conviction. Ask the men who
have seen them and met them in the darkness of battle and all
the rigors of warfare : they will tell you that it can never be. I
make, of course, an exception in favor of that sad array of men
who have been forced or cajoled by their leaders into the ranks
and subordinate offices of the rebel army. I believe a truce
could be struck to-day between the rank and file of the hostile
armies. I believe they could meet and shake hands joyfully
over returning peace, each respecting the courage and manhood
of the other. But for the wicked men who brought on this
rebellion, for the wicked men who led others into the darkness,
such a day can never come. Ask the representatives of Ken-
tucky upon this floor, who know what the rebellion has been in
their State, who know the violence and devastation that have
swept over it, and they will tell you that all over that State neigh-
bor has been slaughtered by neighbor, feuds fierce as human hate
can make them have sprung up, and so long as revenge has an
arm to strike, its blows will never cease to be struck, if such men
come back to dwell where they dwelt before. This is true of
every State over which the desolating tide of war has swept. If
you would not inaugurate an exterminating warfare, to continue
while you and I and our children and children's children live,
set it down at once that the leaders of this rebellion must be

14 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

executed or banished from the republic. They must follow the
fate of the Tories of the Revolution.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the army is a unit on these great
questions ; and I must here be permitted to quote from one of
nature's noblemen, a man from Virginia, with the pride of the
Old Dominion in his blood, but who could not be seduced
from his patriotism, — one who, amid the storm of war that
surged against him at Chickamauga, stood firm as a rock in the
sea, — George H. Thomas. That man wrote a communication
to the Secretary of War nearly a year ago, saying in substance,
for I quote from memory : " I send you the enclosed paper
from a subordinate officer; I endorse its sentiments, and I will
add, that we can never make solid progress against the rebellion
until we take more sweeping and severe measures; we must
make these people feel the rigors of war, subsist our army upon
them, and leave their country so that there will be little in it for
them to desire." Thus spoke a man who is very far from being
what gentlemen upon the other side of the House are pleased
to call an Abolitionist, or a Northern fanatic ; and in saying this,
he spoke the voice of the army.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and amazed beyond measure at
what I have seen in this House. Having been so long with
men who had but one thought upon these great themes, it is
passing strange to me to hear men talking of the old issues and
discussions of four years ago. They forget that we live in
actions more than in years. They forget that sometimes a
nation may live a generation in a single year; that the experi-
ence of the last three years has been greater than that of centu-
ries of quiet and peace. They do not seem to realize that we
are at war. They do not seem to realize that this is a struggle
for existence, — a terrible fight of flint with flint, bayonet with
bayonet, blood for blood. They still retain some hope that
they can smile rebellion into peace. They use terms strangely.
In these modern days words have lost their significance. If a
man steals his thousands from the Treasury, he is not a thief;
O, no ! he is a " defaulter." If a man hangs shackles on the
limbs of a human being and drives him through life as a slave,
it is not man-stealing, it is not even slavery ; it is only " another
form of civilization." We are using words in that strange way.
There are public journals in New York city, I am told, that
never call this a rebellion, — it is only a "civil commotion," a

CONTFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY. 15

"fraternal strife." It was described more vigorously in this
chamber a few days ago as ** an inhuman crusade against the
South." I had thought the day of " Southern brethren *' and
•* wayward sisters " had gone by, but I find it here in the high
noon of its glory. One would suppose from all we hear that
war is gentle and graceful exercise, to be indulged in in a quiet
and pleasant manner. I have lately seen a stanza from the
nursery rhymes of England which I commend to these gentle-
hearted patriots who propose to put down the rebellion with
soft words and paper resolutions : —

" There was an old man who said. How
Shall I flee from this horrible cow ?
I will sit on the stile
And continue to smile,

Which may soften the heart of this cow."

•

I tell you, gentlemen, the heart of this great rebellion cannot
be softened by smiles. You cannot send commissioners to
Richmond, as the gentleman from New York ^ proposes, to
smile away the horrible facts of this war. Not by smiles, but
by thundering volleys, must this rebellion be met, and by such
means alone. I am reminded of Macaulay's paragraph in
regard to the revolution in England : —

" It is because we had a preserving revolution in the seventeenth cen-
tury that we have not had a destroying revolution in the nineteenth. It
is because we had freedom in the midst of servitude that we have order
in the midst of anarchy. For the authority of law, for the security of
property, for the peace of our streets, for the happiness of our homes,
our gratitude is due, under Him who raises and pulls down nations at
his pleasure, to the Long Parliament, to the Convention, and to William
of Orange." 2

Mr. Speaker, if we want a peace that is not a hollow peace,
we must follow that example, and make thorough work of this
war. We must establish freedom in the midst of servitude, and
the authority of law in the midst of rebellion. We must fill
the thinned ranks of our armies, assure them that a grateful
and loving people are behind to sanction and encourage them,
and they will go down against the enemy bearing with them
the majesty and might of a great nation. We must follow the
march of the army with a free and loyal population ; we must

1 Mr. Wood. 2 History of England, Vol. II. p- 510 (Harper's cd., 1856).

l6 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

protect that population by the strong arm of military power.
The war was announced by proclamation, and it must end by
proclamation. We can hold the insurgent States in military
subjection half a century if need be, until they are purged of
their poison, and stand up clean before the country. They
must come back with clean hands if they come at all. I hope
to see in all those States the men who have fought and suffered
for the truth, tilling the fields on which they pitched their tents.
I hope to see them, like old Kaspar of Blenheim, on the sum-
mer evenings, with their children upon their knees, and pointing
out the spot where brave men fell and marble commemorates it.
Let no breath of treason be whispered there. I would have no
man there, like one from my own State, who came to the army
before the great struggle in Georgia, and gave us his views of
peace. He came as the friend of Vallandigham, the man for
whom the gentlemen on the other side of the House from my
State worked and voted. We were on the eve of the great
battle. I said to him, •* You wish to make Mr. Vallandigham
Governor of Ohio. Why?" He replied, "Because, in the
first place," using the language of the gentleman from New
York, " you cannot subjugate the South, and we propose to
withdraw without trying it Ipnger. In the next place," we will
have nothing to do with this Abolition war, nor will we give
another man or another dollar for its support." ** To-morrow,"
I continued, ** we may be engaged in a death-struggle with the
rebel army that confronts us, and is daily increasing. Where is
the sympathy of your party? Do you want us beaten, or Bragg
beaten?" He answered that they had no interest in fighting,
that they did not believe in fighting. I asked him further,
" How would it affect your party if we should crush the rebels
in this battle, and utterly destroy them ? " " We would probably
lose votes by it." ** How would it affect your party if we should
be beaten? " ** It would probably help us in votes."

That, gentlemen, is the kind of support the army is receiving
in what should be the house of its friends. That, gentlemen, is
the kind of support these men are inclined to give this country
and its army in this terrible struggle. I hasten to make honor-
able exceptions. I know there are honorable gentlemen on the
other side who do not belong to that category, and I am proud
to acknowledge them as my friends. I am sure they do not
sympathize with these efforts, whose tendency is to pull down the

CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY, 17

fabric of our government by aiding their friends over the border
to do it. Their friends^ I say ; for when the Ohio election was
about coming off, in the army at Chattanooga there was more
anxiety in the rebel camp than in our own. The pickets had
talked face to face, and the rebels made daily inquiry how the
election in Ohio was going. And at midnight of the 13 th of
October, when the telegraphic news was flashed down to us, and
it was announced to the army that the Union had sixty thousand
majority in Ohio, there arose a shout from every tent along the
line on that rainy midnight, which rent the skies with jubilees,
and sent despair to the heart of those who were ** waiting and
watching across the border." It told them that their colleagues,
their sympathizers, their friends, I had almost said their emissa-
ries, at the North, had failed to sustain themselves in turning the
tide against the Union and its army. And from that hour, but
not till that hour, the army felt safe from the enemy behind it.
Thanks to the 1 3th of October ! It told thirteen of my colleagues
that they had no constituencies. I deprecate these apparently
partisan remarks; it hurts me to make them; but it hurts me
more to know that they are true. I would not make them but
that I wish to unmask the pretext that these men are in earnest,
and laboring for the vigorous prosecution of the war and the
maintenance of the government. I cannot easily forget the
treatment which the conscription bill received this morning.^
Even the few men in the army who voted for Vallandigham
wrote on the back of their tickets, ** Draft! draft! " But their
representatives here think otherwise.

I conclude by returning once more to the resolution before
us. Let no weak sentiments of misplaced sympathy deter us
from inaugurating a measure which will cleanse our nation and
make it the fit home of freedom and a glorious manhood. Let
us not despise the severe wisdom of our Revolutionary fathers
when they served their generation in a similar way. Let the
republic drive from its soil the traitors that have conspired
against its life, as God and his angels drove Satan and his host
from heaven. He was not too merciful to be just, and to hurl
down in chains and everlasting darkness the " traitor angel "
who ** first broke peace in heaven," and rebelled against Him.

^ See the following Speech, on "Enrolling and Calling out the National Forces,"
June 25, 1864.

VOL. 1. 2

1 8 CONFISCATION OF REBEL PROPERTY.

On the 9th of April, 1864, in reply to Mr. Cox, of Ohio, Mr. Garfield
made these remarks : —

My colleague misrepresents me — I presume unintentionally
— when he says that I have, on two occasions, declared my
readiness to overleap the Constitution. That I may set myself
and him right on that question, I will say, once for all, that I
have never uttered such a sentiment. I believe, sir, that our
fathers erected a government to endure forever; that they
framed a Constitution which provided, not for its own disso-
lution, but for its amendment and perpetuation. I believe that
that Constitution confers on the executive and legislative de-
partments of the government the amplest powers to protect
and defend this nation against all its enemies, foreign and do-
mestic ; that we are clothed with plenary power to pursue reb-
els in arms, either as traitors, to be convicted in the courts and
executed on the gallows, or as public enemies, to be subjected
to the laws of war and destroyed on the battle-field. We are at
liberty to adopt either policy, or both,' as we deem most expe-
dient. But, sir, gentlemen on the other side of this chamber
profess to be greatly embarrassed by constitutional restrictions.
They tell us that the Constitution confers upon us no right to
coerce a rebellious State ; no right to confiscate the property
of traitors ; no right to employ black men in the military ser-
vice ; no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus ; no right to
arrest spies; no right to draft citizens to fill up the army; in
short, no right to do anything which is indispensably necessary
to save the nation and the Constitution. It was in answer to
such claims that I said, in substance, if all these things were so,
I would fall back on the inalienable right of self-preservation,
and overleap the barriers of the Constitution ; but I would leap
into the arms of a willing people, who made the Constitution,
and who could, in the day of dire necessity, make other weapons
for their own salvation. The nation is greater than the work of
its own hands. The preservation of its life is of greater mo-
ment than the preservation of any parchment, however replete
with human wisdom. I desire to read an extract from an
authority which, I am sure, the gentleman will acknowledge,
Thomas Jefferson.^ This extract states more ably than I can
the very doctrine I have advocated.

* Here Mr. Garfield read from a letter to J. B. Colvin, dated September 20, iSio^
which may be found in Jefferson's Works, Vol. V. p. 542.

ENROLLING AND CALLING OUT THE

NATIONAL FORCES.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

June 25, 1864.

The first call for troops to suppress the Southern Rebellion was made
on April 15, 1861, under the laws authorizing the President to call out
the militia of the several States to repel invasion and to suppress insur-
rection (especially the law. of February 28, 1795). July 22, Congress
authorized the President to accept the service of 500,000 volunteers, for
a period not exceeding three years ; and shortly after, this authorization
was duplicated. Thus, early in the war the government was committed
to volunteering as the means of filling up the army. To stimulate volun-
teering, Congress voted, besides pay and clothing, a bounty of ^loo to
each volunteer who should serve two years, or during the war if sooner
ended. As the war went on, additional inducements were offered, some-
times by law and sometimes by order of the War Department. A short
step towards putting the military power of the republic more fully at the
disposal of the government was taken in the act of July 17, 1862, which
gave the President fuller control of the militia of the States. August 4 of
the same year, the President called for 300,000 militia for nine months,
and directed that the States should be drafted to fill up their quotas if
necessary. March 3, 1863, the first Enrolment Act was passed. This
gave the President power to draft, but several classes of able-bodied
male citizens were exempted, and the drafted persons had the option
of serving, furnishing an accepted substitute, or paying a commutation
authorized by the Secretary of War, not to exceed J300, for the procu-
ration of a substitute. October 17, 1863, 300,000 men were called for
under this act. On the ist of February, 1864, a further draft of 500,000
men was ordered ; March 14, another draft for 200,000. The frequency
of these calls, as well as the large number of men called for in the suc-
cessive proclamations, is explained in great degree by the looseness of
the act of March 3, 1 863, according to which large numbers of men com-
petent for military service were exempted, and according to wliich those

20 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES,

actually drafted could avoid the service by payment of the commu-
tation. Practically, that law tended to fill the treasury rather than the
army; and it was called a financial rather than a military measure.
Its operation was well explained by Mr. Garfield in some remarks made
on February 3, 1864 : —

" I wish to call the attention of the committee — and if I could I
would address my remarks only to those who are in favor of an effective
conscription bill of some sort — to some facts in relation to the opera-
tion of the existing law. I will state in a few sentences the direct results
of that law, so far as it has been enforced.

" On the 14th day of December last, there had been drawn from the
wheel in the late draft 290,000 names. Of these, 73,000 were exempted
in consequence of disability, and 74,000 for other reasons, as laid down
in the second section of the present conscription law; 41,000 paid com-
mutation ; 24,000 furnished substitutes ; and 1 1 ,000 went to the field.
Several thousand more were thrown out as having been improperly en-
rolled. Therefore it will be seen that, out of 290,000 names drawn from
the wheel, the government got 11,000 men who went themselves, and
24,000 who went as substitutes. Look at the result : 290,000 men
placed out of the enrolment list for three years to come, of whom only
1 1,000 are in the army! How many men would you get at that rate
fi-om the entire enrolment list of three million? If the entire number
were drafted to-morrow under the present law, you would get 350,000
men, and then you have pledged the faith of the government that for
three years to come not another man in the United States shall be com-
pelled to enter the military service. That would be the effect of the
present law if executed in full to-morrow. I say again, that under that
law you can obtain but 350,000 men by substitute and by draft, and
then you will have forsworn yourselves against calling for another man in
the United States for the army by any compulsory process."

The speculative spirit engendered by the inflation of the currency
and the prodigal expenditures of the war was nowhere more prominent
than in the business of recruiting. Congress fostered this spirit by voting
liberal bounties, and the War Department outran Congress by offering
bounties without the authority of law. In the mean time Congress was
struggling with the difficulties of the situation. \ December 3, 1863, it
was provided by joint resolution, " That no bounties, except such as are
now provided by law, shall be paid to any persons enlisting after the fifth
day of January next." But in the same resolution money was voted to
pay the unauthorized bounties up to that time. Then, a few days later,
by joint resolution (approved January 13, 1864) it was voted to extend
the time for which these high bounties shall be paid to the first day
of March. Mr. Garfield's was one of the two votes cast in the House
against this resolution. He thus explained his vote : —

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 21

" The request of the President and the War Department was to con-
tinue the payment of bounties until the ist of February next ; but the
resolution before the House proposes to extend the payment until the
I St of March. And while the President asks us to continue the payment
of bounties to veteran volunteers only, this resolution extends it to all
volunteers, whether veterans or raw recruits. If the resolution prevails,
it seems to me we shall swamp the finances of the government before
the I St of March arrives. I cannot consent to vote for a measure which
authorizes the expenditure of so vast a sum as will be expended under
this resolution, unless it be shown absolutely indispensable to the work
of filling up the army. I am anxious that veterans shall volunteer, and
that bounties be paid to them. But if we extend the payment to all
classes of volunteers for two months to come, I fear we shall swamp the
government. Before I vote for this resolution, I desire to know whether
the government is determined to abandon the draft. If it be its policy
to raise an army solely by volunteering and paying bounties, we have
one line of policy to pursue. If the conscription law is to be anything
better than a dead letter on the statute-book, our line of policy is a very

different one I am sorry to see in tliis resolution the indication

of a timid and vacillating course. It is unworthy the dignity of our
government and our army to use the conscription act as a scarecrow,
and the bounty system as a bait, alternately to scare and coax men into
the army. Let us give liberal bounties to veteran soldiers who may
re-enlist, and for raw recruits use the draft."

A law approved on February 24, 1864, greatly reduced the exemp-
tions made by the law of March, 1863, and narrowed the commutation
clause ; but still failed to meet the emergency. While Congress was
thus halting between two opinions, and the army was on the point of
serious reduction through the expiration of enlistments, President Lin-
coln himself went before the House Military Committee and stated the
pressing necessity for men to take the places of those whose enlistments
would soon expire. He asked for legal power to draft men to fill the
ranks. A bill embodying these more positive ideas was introduced into
the House by Mr. Schenck of Ohio, June 13, 1864. The House still
hesitated, and amendments emasculating the bill were promptly carried.
Mr. Garfield protested that the government was in want of men, and not
of money ; that the existing law had, in the main, failed to secure the
requisite reinforcements ; that the commutation clause of the enrolment
act could not be retained, and the army be filled up at the same time.
"This Congress," said he, "must sooner or later meet the issue face to
face, and I beheve the time will soon come, if it has not now come,
when we nuist give up the war or give up the commutation. I believe
the men and the Congress that shall finally refuse to strike out the com-
mutation clause, but retain it in its full force as it now is, will sub-

22 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

stantially vote to abandon the war. And I am not ready to believe,
I will not believe, that the Thirty-eighth Congress has come to such a
conclusion."

Better counsels finally prevailed. Without following the bill of June 13
through its devious history, it suffices to say that at the very end of the
session an efficient law passed, bearing the tide, "An Act further to
regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out the National
Forces, and for other Purposes," and was approved July 4, 1864.
Pending this bill, Mr. Garfield delivered the following speech.

MR. SPEAKER, — The honorable gentleman* who has just
taken his seat has seen fit to refer to a remark which
I made on the last occasion when the proposed repeal of the
commutation clause was before the House. I do not think he
intended to misrepresent me, yet he did so. I did not take it
upon myself to criticise the individual acts or votes of any mem-
ber of this House. But, sir, it is my right to animadvert upon
the action of this House and the effects of its policy. This right
I have hitherto used in such manner as I deemed proper, and
while I have the honor of a seat in this body I shall continue to
use it. On that occasion I did, as the gentleman states, declare
it as my opinion that we had reached a point in the progress of
events where we must decide, to repeal the commutation clause
or give up the successful prosecution of the war. I did not
then believe, nor do I now believe, that the vote then taken
was such a decision ; but I did believe, and I yet believe, that
if the policy indicated by that vote shall be persisted in, if the
commutation clause be permanently retained in the law, if
no more efficient law be passed this session for filling up our
armies and supplying the waste of battle and disease, the rebel-
lion cannot be put down during the lifetime of the Thirty-eighth
Congress. I go further. If this Congress shall leave the law
as it now stands, and the next Congress repeats the folly, I do
not believe the rebellion will be put down during the continu-
ance of the next Congress, nor at all while the incubus of com-
mutation weighs down the present law. In my judgment, that
clause stands directly in the way of filling up our armies.

Mr. Speaker, it has never been my policy to conceal a truth
merely because it is unpleasant. It may be well to smile in the

1 Mr. Odell, of New York.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 23

face of danger, but it is neither well nor wise to let danger
approach unchallenged and unannounced. A brave nation, like
a brave man, desires to see and measure the perils which threaten
it It is the right of the American people to know the neces-
sities of the republic when they are called upon to make sacri-
fices for it It is this lack of confidence in ourselves and the
people, this timid waiting for events to control us when they
should obey us, that makes men oscillate between hope and
fear, — now in the sunshine of the hilltops, and now in the
gloom and shadows of the valley. To such men the morning
bulletin which heralds success in the army gives exultation and
high hope ; the evening despatch announcing some slight dis-
aster to our advancing columns brings gloom and depression.
Hope rises and falls by the accidents of war, as the mercury of
the thermometer changes by the accidents of heat and cold.
Let us rather take for our symbol the sailor's barometer, which
faithfully forewarns him of the tempest, and gives him unerring
promise of serene skies and peaceful seas.

No man can deny that we have grounds for apprehension and
anxiety. The unexampled magnitude of the contest, the enor-
mous expenditures of the war, the unprecedented waste of battle,
bringing sorrow to every loyal fireside, the courage, endurance,
and desperation of our enemy, the sympathy given him by the
monarchies of the Old World as they wait and hope for our de-
struction, — all these considerations should make us anxious and
earnest ; but they should not add one hue of despair to the face
of an American citizen, — they should not abate a tittle of his
heart and hope. The spectres of defeat, bankruptcy, and repu-
diation have stalked through this chamber, evoked by those
gentlemen who see no hope for the republic in the arbitra-
ment of war, no power in the justice of our cause, no peace
made secure by the triumph of freedom and truth.

Mr. Speaker, even at this late day of the session, I will beg
the indulgence of the House while I point out some of the
grounds of our confidence in the final success of our cause,
while I endeavor to show that, though beset with danger, we
still stand on firm ground, and though the heavens are clouded,
yet above storm and cloud the sun of our national hope shines
with steady and undimmed splendor. History is constantly
repeating itself, making only such changes of programme as
the growth of nations and centuries requires. Such struggles

24 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

as ours, and far greater ones, have occurred in other ages, and
their records are written for us. I desire to refer to the exam-
ple of our kindred across the sea, in their great struggles at the
close of the last and the beginning of the present century, to
show what a brave nation can do when their liberties are in dan-
ger and their national existence is at stake.

There were two periods in the history of that contest when
England saw darker days than any that we have seen, or, I
hope, ever shall see. Consider her condition in 1797. For ten
years the tide of mad revolution had been sweeping over Europe
like a destroying pestilence, demolishing thrones and principali-
ties ; and, while many evils were swept away, chaos and anarchy
were left in its track. In 1792 France declared war against the
world; and in February, 1793, specifically declared war against
England. At that time the British debt was $1,268,668,045,
and its annual interest $45,225,304. The population of the
United Kingdom was less than twelve millions, including Ire-
land, — Ireland then, as now, " the tear in the eye of Great Brit-
ain,"— a source of weakness rather than strength. The spirit
of revolution pervaded the kingdom from collieries to court.
The throne distrusted the people, and the people were jealous
of' the throne. In 1794 the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended,
against an opposition in Parliament more determined and far
abler than its suspension met in our Congress two years ago.
In 1796 three and a quarter million Catholics in Ireland were
organized to revolt against the government, to be aided by a
French fleet of forty sail, with twenty-five thousand French sol-
diers on board. But for the storm which dispersed the fleet, the
revolt must have been successful. In the same year the naval
power of England was threatened with dissolution by a wide-
spread mutiny in the fleet. Ship after ship deserted the fleet
•off" Cadiz and in the North Sea. The Channel fleet ran up the
red flag of mutiny from almost every masthead, and was drawn
up in line of battle across the mouth of the Thames, prepared
to sail to London if the demands of the mutineers were not
acceded to. It required all the firmness of the king and his
government to save the city and the navy. In 1797, oppressed
with financial disaster, the Bank of England suspended specie
payments, and paper money (an immense circulation of which
crowded the country) was the legal currency for twenty-two
years thereafter. In that fifth year of the war, as Alison says, —

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 25

" Everything seemed to be falling at once. Their armies had been
defeated, the Bank had suspended payment, and now the fleet, the pride
and glory of England, appeared on the point of deserting the national

colors The public creditors apprehended the speedy dissolution

of government, and the cessation of their wonted payments from the
treasury. Despair seized upon the boldest hearts ; and such was the
genera] panic that the three per cents were sold as low as forty-five, after
having been nearly one hundred before the commencement of the war.
Never during .the whole contest had the consternation been so great^ and
never was Britain placed so near the verge of ruin." ^

All this time France, with frenzied activity and enormous
power, was dealing her deadly blows. In Parliament the great
Fox was leading a powerful opposition against the government.
The record of English divisions would answer for our own.
Alison says : —

" So violent had party spirit become, and so completely had it usurped
the place of patriotism or reason, that many of the popular leaders had
come to wish anxiously for the triumph of their enemies. It was no
longer a simple disapprobation of the war which they felt, but a fervent
desire that it might terminate to the disadvantage of their country, and
that the Republican might triumph over the British arms. They thought
that there was no chance of Parliamentary reform being carried, or any
considerable addition to democratic power acquired, unless the ministry
were dispossfeed, and, to accomplish this object, they hesitated not to
betray their wish for the success of the inveterate enemy of their country.
These animosities produced their usual effect of rendering the moderate or
rational equally odious to both parties ; whoever deplored the war was re-
puted a foe to his country ; whoever pronounced it necessary was deemed
a conspirator against its liberty, and an abettor of arbitrary power." ^

Against such an opposition and such discouragements, the
like of which we have not yet seen, England, with a brave king,
a wise ministry, and a courageous Parliament, rose to the level
of the great occasion, passed laws both for volunteering and
draft, filled the ranks of her army and navy to more than three
hundred and fifty thousand men, poured out her wealth with a
lavish hand, renewed the great contest, and continued it, not
four years, but five times four years longer.

But England saw darker days than those of 1797. In the
beginning of 181 2 Napoleon had risen to the height of his

* History of Europe, ist ser., Vol. IV. p. 236 (Edinburgh and London, i860).
« Ibid.. Vol. IV. p. 141.

26 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

marvellous power. The continent of Europe was at his feet.
By victorious diplomacy and still more victorious war he had
founded an empire which seemed to defy human power success-
fully to assail it. Every coalition against him had been broken,
every alliance had failed. More than half the nations of Europe
followed his conquering eagles. From the Vistula to the pillars
of Hercules, except the rocky triangle of the Torres -Vedras,
where Wellington was held at bay by five times his number
under a great Marshal of France, the Continent presented an
unbroken front against England. Russia remained in frozen
isolation, a spectator of the contest. Only Prussia and Austria
followed the lead of England. Let us consider her condition at
this second crisis of her fate.

Her population, including Ireland, was about seventeen millions.
Her debt had been more than trebled since the beginning of the
war, and now reached the enormous sum of $4,ocx),ooo,ooo.
Specie payments being still suspended, her paper currency was
more than ever expanded. In the beginning of the war, she
raised from her mines and coined about $30,ooo,ocx) in gold.
But the revolution which swept over South America had stopped
the working of the mines, so that before the close of the war
the annual British coinage was less than $12,000,000. Her navy
was crippled by the war, her commerce ruined by the French
Decrees and the Non-importation Act of the United States.
Her imports exceeded her exports by $65,000,000, and the
balance was paid in gold. For two years her harvests had
failed, and in 1 812 she paid $21,000,000 in gold for foreign
grain to feed her people. In that year alone her exports de-
clined $140,000,000. The heavy subsidies to her allies and the
payments to her own armies on the Continent were in gold.
In 1 81 2 she sent $30,000,000 in gold, for which she paid thirty
per cent premium, to Wellington's army in the Peninsula. Her
bonds had so depreciated that a loan of ;^6o increased her debt
;^ioo. A short time previous, in the midst of increasing dis-
aster, the reason of the king gave way, and he sat a lunatic on
the throne of a kingdom which seemed ready to go down with
him in the general ruin. This event added a new and compli-
cated question to the distractions of Parliament, and gave a new
weapon to the opposition.

It is not necessary for my present purpose to inquire whether
justice leaned to the side of England or her adversary. It is

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 27

enough to know that she believed it was on her part a struggle
for self-existence and for the constitutional liberty of the world.
Inspired with this conviction, she stood like a giant at bay ; in
high debate she reasserted the justice of her cause, summoned
anew, not the frantic energy of despair, but the inexhaustible
reserve of calm Anglo-Saxon courage, the unfathomed resources
of English faith and English pluck (a proud share of which I
trust this nation has inherited), and in the face of unexampled
discouragement and appalling disaster, laying under contribu-
tion all the resources of her realm, went out again to meet the
man of destiny, whose victories were numbered by hundreds,
and whose eagles were followed by half the world. Increasing
both taxes and loans, she raised and expended for that year
$550,ooo,ocx). She filled her navy to one hundred and twenty-
five thousand men, and before the year had ended six hundred
and forty-eight thousand men were arrayed under her banners.
Seconded by the indomitable spirit of her people, her armies
emerged from the gloom of that nineteenth year of the war,
and, marching with unfaltering step through three more bloody
years and the carnage of Waterloo, she planted her victorious
standards on the battlements of Paris, and gave peace to
Europe.

And can we, the descendants of such a people, with such a
history and such an example before us, — can we, dare we, falter
in a day like this? Dare we doubt? Should we not rather say,
as Bolingbroke said to his people in their hour of peril: ** Oh,
woe to thee when doubt comes ! it blows like a wind from the
north, and makes all thy joints to quake. Woe, indeed, be to
the statesmen who doubt the strength of their country, and
stand in awe of the enemy with whom it is engaged ! '*

At the same period, one of the greatest minds of England de-
clared that three things were necessary to her success : —

1. To listen to no terms of peace till freedom and order were
established in Europe.

2. To fill up her army and perfect its organization.

3. To secure the favor of Heaven by putting away forever the
crime of slavery and the slave trade.

Can we learn a better lesson? Great Britain in that same
period began the work which ended in breaking the fetters of
all her bondmen. She did maintain her armies and her finances,
and she did triumph. We have begun to secure the approval

28 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

of Heaven by doing justice, though long delayed, and securing
to every human being in this republic freedom henceforth and
forever.

Mr. Speaker, it has long been my settled conviction that it
was a part of the Divine purpose to keep us under the pressure
and grief of this war until the conscience of the nation should
be aroused to the enormity of its great crime against the black
man, and full reparation should be made. We entered the
struggle, a large majority insisting that slavery should be let
alone, with a defiance almost blasphemous. Every movement
toward the recognition of the negro's manhood was resisted.
Slowly, and at a frightful cost of precious lives, the nation has
yielded its wicked and stubborn prejudices against him, till at
last blue coats cover more than one hundred thousand swarthy
breasts, and the national banner is borne in the smoke of battle
by men lately loaded with chains, but now bearing the honors
and emoluments of American soldiers. Dare we hope for final
success till we give them the full protection of soldiers? Like
the sins of mankind against God, the sin of slavery is so great
that " without the shedding of blood there is no remission."
Shall we not secure the favor of Heaven by putting it com-
pletely away?

Shall we not fill up our armies? Shall we not also triumph?
Was there in the condition of England in 1812 a single element
essential to success which we do not possess tc-day? Observe
the contrast. Her population was less than seventeen millions;
ours is twenty-five millions in the loyal States alone. Her debt
was more than $4,000,000,000, its annual interest $161,000,000;
our debt is $1,720,000,000, and its annual interest $71,000,000.
The balance of trade was $65,000,000 against her; in 1863 the
balance was $79,621,872 in our favor. She bought grain from
foreign nations to feed her people ; we feed our own, and send
an immense surplus to foreign markets. Her mines yielded her
twelve or fifteen millions of bullion annually; ours are now
yielding $120,000,000 a year. More than half of all her pay-
ments were made in coin purchased at a heavy premium ; we pay
nothing in coin but $50,000,000 of our interest, and the salaries
of our ministers and consuls abroad. She crossed the sea to
meet her enemy on foreign soil ; we meet ours on our own soil,
in a country that has been ours since the foundation of the
republic. She fought to maintain her rank among the nations

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 29

of Europe; we fight to maintain our existence among the
nations of the earth, and to preserve liberty and union for
ourselves and our children's children.

If the example of England fails to inspire us, let us not, I be-
seech you, forget our fathers of the Revolution. We have seen
no day so dark as were whole years in their struggle. We have
seen no captures of Philadelphia, no winter quarters at Morris-
town, no blood-stained snow at Valley Forge. Out of a popu-
lation of three millions, one quarter of whom adhered to the
enemy, they sent to the field 395,892 men, — one for every
seven women and children in the States. Were we to double
our armies to-day, we should still fall far behind that propor-
tion. Who can compare our resources with theirs, and not
blush at the mention of failure, the suggestion of defeat? Do
we, with power almost unlimited, with resources as yet un-
touched, the balance of trade in our favor, every branch of
industry flourishing, and everything in its proper place except
the Congress of the United States, — do we talk gloomily of
the issue of this contest? I believe, sir, that the worth and
manhood of a nation must be tried by the same standard that
tests the worth and manhood of individual men. We can never
know what stuff a man is made of till we see him brought face
to face with some desperate issue, some crisis of his life in
which he must peril all in one noble effort, or shrink ignobly
away into the coward's oblivion. If, summoning all his untried
mankood, and flinging into the scale his honor, his fortune, and
his life, he goes down to the trial, we know that to him " there 's
no such word as fail." So, sir, a nation is not worthy to be
saved if, in the hour of its fate, it will not gather up all its
jewels of manhood and life, and go down into the conflict, how-
ever bloody and doubtful, resolved on measureless ruin or
complete success.

" Si fractus illabatur orbis,
Impavidum fericnt ruinae."

But no ruin awaits such a nation. The American people
have not yet risen to "the height of the great argument," nor
will they until those who represent them here are ready with
unselfish devotion to walk in the rugged path that leads to

victory.

If we will not learn a lesson from either England or our Rev-
olutionary fathers, let us at least learn from our enemies. I have

30 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

seen their gallantry in battle, their hoping against hope amid
increasing disaster; and, traitors though they are, I am proud
of their splendid courage when I remember that they are
Americans. Our army is equally brave, but our government
and Congress are far behind theirs in earnestness and energy.
Until we go into war with the same desperation and abandon-
ment which mark their course, we do not deserve to succeed,
and we shall not succeed. What have they done ? What has
their government done, — a government based, in the first
place, on extreme State rights and State sovereignty, but which
has become more centralized and despotic than the monarchies
of Europe? They have not only called for volunteers, but they
have drafted. They have not only drafted, but cut off both
commutation and substitution. They have gone further. They
have adopted conscription proper, — the old French conscrip-
tion of 1797, — and have declared that every man between
sixteen and sixty years of age is a soldier. But we stand here
bartering money for blood, debating whether we will fight the
enemies of the nation or pay three hundred dollars into its
treasury.

Mr. Speaker, with this brief review of the grounds of our hope,
I now ask your attention to the main proposition in the bill
before the House, the repeal of the commutation clause. Going
back to the primary question of the power to raise armies, I
lay it down as a fundamental proposition, as an inherent and
necessary element of sovereignty, that a nation has a right to
the personal service of its citizens. The stability and power
of every sovereignty rest upon that basis. Why can the
citizen claim the protection of the government ? Because
rights and duties are reciprocal, and the government owes him
protection only as he gives sanction and power to the law by
his personal service and the contribution of his wealth. Hence,
in the name of law, he can demand protection. Hence also, in
the name of law, his government can demand a contribution
from his purse and his personal service. There are two great
muscles that move the arm of sovereignty, — the treasury and
the army. If a nation has the right to protect itself, it must
have the right to use these two powers. It may, therefore, take
money from the citizen in accordance with the forms of law.
It may take every dollar of every citizen, if so much should be
necessary, in order to support and maintain the government.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 31

And if the nation has the right to the citizen's money, has it
not equally the right to his personal service? Coercion accom-
panies the tax-gatherer at every step. The law of revenue rests
upon coercion. Without that same coercive power no govern-
ment could put a soldier into the .field. As well might we
claim that the legal basis of the treasury is the contribution-
box, as that the legal basis of the army is the volunteering
system.

I go a step further. Every nation under heaven claims the
right to order its citizens into the ranks as soldiers. Great Brit-
ain has always held that power behind her volunteering system.
In 1798 she made a law, first to offer bounties to volunteers, and
then to draft her enrolled citizens into the army. No such
thing as commutation was known. Gentlemen talk as though
the right to pay three hundred dollars in lieu of personal service
was one of the inalienable rights guaranteed to us by the Con-
stitution. They forget that until the 3d of March, 1863, there
was never known in this country such a thing as paying money
in lieu of personal service. England never indeed had a con-
scription, but she did provide for a draft. Under the law of
1798, she raised her militia for local purposes, and drafted from
the militia into the regular army in the field.

Let us look for a moment at our own history in regard to
this subject. How were the three hundred and ninety-five
thousand men raised for the war of the Revolution? Every
Colony had laws for calling out its militia and compelling them
to serve. By a statute of Maryland a citizen was liable to a
fine of ;^io,ooo for a refusal to obey the command when
ordered into the field. By a statute of Massachusetts as early
as 1693, severe punishments were provided for those who re-
fused to turn out for military duty when ordered. The spirit
of personal independence and the protection of individual
rights were at least as carefully guarded by the founders of the
republic as they are by this generation, and yet they never
doubted the power of the States to compel the citizen to serve
in the field. It makes no matter whether it be done by the
President, or the government of a State, the same principle is
involved.

I affirm again that every one of the States raised men by
draft. It was a presumed common law right. The Constitution
of the United States recognizes the same principle by declaring

32 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

that " Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insur-
rections, and repel invasions " ; * and on the 29th of September,
1789, an act was approved (the second military law under the
Constitution), giving to the President full power to call forth
the militia to protect the frontiers against the Indians. That
law was extended by the act of May 2, 1792, so as to give him
the power to send the militia beyond the limits of their States.
By the act of February 28, 1795, his power was still further ex-
tended, and a heavy penalty was affixed for disobedience of the
law. In the case of Houston v, Moore,^ and also in Martin v,
Mott,^ the Supreme Court decided that the law is constitutional,
and that the President has the constitutional power to compel
a citizen to do military duty. In the war of 18 12 the President
called on the States for troops, and when a sufficient number
did not volunteer they were obtained by draft. In 1839, when
the dispute occurred between this country and England in refer-
ence to the boundaries of the State of Maine, a law was passed
(March 3, 1839) authorizing the President to call forth one
hundred thousand men for six months, a period double the
length allowed by former laws. Again, the draft law in the war
of 18 1 2 allowed substitutes, but not commutation. The bill be-
fore us permits drafted men to obtain substitutes, but not to pay
commutation. I say, then, since the beginning of the govern-
ment,— still further, since the beginning of the Revolution, —
still further, since the founding of the Colonies, — the right of
sending citizens into the military service has been repeatedly
asserted and exercised; and up to the 3d of March, 1863, such
a thing as a payment of money in lieu of military service was
never known in this country. Gentlemen must, therefore,
abandon the claim that in repealing this clause we are interfer-
ing with immemorial usage and inalienable rights. Even the
law of 1863 did not regard the three hundred dollars as an
equivalent for military service. It provided that the three hun-
dred dollars should be paid " for the procuration of a substi-
tute," and was supposed to be a sum sufficient for that purpose.
It is now far from sufficient, and the law is even more unjust
than at first. If the three hundred dollars would always pro-
cure a substitute, the military service would not suffer by retain-
ing the clause.

* Art. I. Sect. 8. « 5 Wheaton's Reports, i. •12 Ibid. 19.

CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES. 33

But what are the facts ? The President, the Secretary of War,
our own knowledge of affairs, tell us that, if it be retained, it
will be impossible to fill the places of the eighty-five thousand
hundred-days men who will go out of service in a few weeks,
and of the three-years regiments whose terms of service are
every day expiring. Moreover, we must allow something for
the waste of battle, the waste of disease, and all the incidents of
war. And now, while our armies are advancing gloriously,
while our campaigns are prosperous, while there is no immedi-
ate cause for alarm, let us look into the future and provide for
its emergencies, let us hold up the hands of the President and
remove this obstacle from the law, as he recommends. Gentle-
men doubt what the people will say and how they will feel. I
have learned that the people are braver than their representa-
tives. I would much sooner take counsel of the American
people, arid especially the American army, than of their repre-
sentatives when an election is at hand. Would to God there
were no Presidential election to cast its shadow over this battle
summer, and no Congressional elections overshadowing this
House! Perhaps we might then see with clearer vision the
interests of the country, and strike toward them with bolder
hands. This I do know, that the loyal people have laid up a
great oath on the altar that they will never rest till the rebellion
is overthrown, and they will take all necessary means to hew
their way through to this purpose. I know that the people
whom I represent have united their destiny with the destiny of
the Union, and will share its fortunes, whatever betide it. I
have not asked them, but I believe they will respond cheerfully
to this measure. But whatever they may do, I shall strive to
remove all obstacles to the increase of the army.

I ask gentlemen who oppose this repeal, why they desire to
make it easy for citizens to escape from military duty. Is it
a hardship to serve one's country? Is it disgraceful service?
Will you, by your action here, say to the soldiers in the field,
" This is disreputable business ; you have been deceived ; you
have been caught in the trap, and we will make no law to put
anybody else in it?" Do not thus treat your soldiers in the
field. They are proud of their voluntary service ; and if there
be one wish of the army paramount to all others, one message
more earnest than any other which they send back to you, it is
that you will aid in filling their battle-thinned ranks by a draft

VOL. I. 3

34 CALLING OUT THE NATIONAL FORCES.

that will compel lukewarm citizens who prate against the war
to go into the field. They ask not that you will expend large
bounties in paying men of third-rate patriotism, while they went
with no other bounty than that love of country to which they
gave their young lives a free offering, but that you will compel
these eleventh-hour men to take their chances in the field
beside them. Let us grant their request, and by a steady and
persistent effort we shall in the end, be it near or remote, be it
in one year or ten, crown the nation with victory and enduring
peace.

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

February i8 and March 15, 1864.

On the i8th of Februaiy^ 1864^ a joint resolution was reported to the
House from the Committee of Ways and Means, authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury from time to time, at his discretion, to sell any gold coin
in the treasury over and above the amount which, in his opinion, might
be required by the government for the payment of interest on the public
debt. Mr. Garfield made the following remarks, the first that he made
upon a financial subject in the House of Representatives.

MR. SPEAKER, — I propose to detain the House but a
few moments on the question before it, as all I wish is to
state, as clearly as possible, the conditions of the proposition as
they exist in the resolution.

By the present law gold can come into the treasury of the
United States through the customs and various other avenues.
But there is only one avenue by which it goes out, namely, the
payment of the interest on the public debt. There was in the
treasury on Saturday last $18,900,000 in gold. It is coming
into the treasury at the rate of four or five hundred thousand
dollars a day ; at the lowest estimate it is four hundred thou-
sand dollars. If this rate continues until the ist of July next,
we shall have $74,107,213.

Mr. Boutwell. I wish to ask the gentleman whether the Secretary of
the Treasury, in his estimate of the receipts and expenditures for the
fiscal year 1864-65, does not show that our interest account, which is to
be met by the payment of specie, will exceed ^85,000,000, while our re-
ceipts through the custom-house will amount to but ^70,000,000, showing
a deficiency for the fiscal year 1864-65 of ;$ 15,000,000,

I should have answered the gentleman in my next sentence
had he not interrupted me. The Secretary of the Treasury re-

36 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

ports that there will become due at various times, ending with
the 1st of July next, $23,601,943, to be paid in gold. That is
every dollar of coin which the treasury of the United States
will be obliged to pay up to that time. Now, there will remain
a surplus in the treasury, on the basis of the present receipts,

— and the receipts have greatly exceeded the estimates, — on
the 1st of July next, of $50,505,270, and, according to the pres-
ent practice of the government, no disposition of it will be
made.

Mr. Fernando Wood. I desire to ask the gentleman upon what basis*
or upon what data, he estimates the receipts of gold from the custom-
house, or any other sources, up to the ist of July next

The estimates are based upon what we have been receiving
for several months past, and the fact that the months immedi-
ately to come are always better than the winter months. I base
the estimates upon what we have been receiving from day to
day for many weeks. These estimates may be too large, but
that would not alter the principle involved. No one doubts
that there will be a surplus.

I say, then, that by taking the average, or a sum rather below
the present average, — and we have every indication that the
average will rather increase than decrease in the coming months,

— wc shall have on the ist of July $50,500,000 in gold in the
treasury, with no law for paying it out. Now, what is the re-
sult? There is, probably, according to the estimates of gentle-
men, scattered through the country in the feet of old stockings,
locked up in trunks, put away in bureaus, laid away under the
heads of beds and in vaults of banks, $200,000,000 of gold. I
suspect that to be a large estimate, judging from the statements
of trade.

Now, sir, on the ist of July next one quarter of all the gold in
the United States will be locked up in the vaults of the United
States Treasury, and lying there as dead matter. Every dollar
that goes in there leaves the amount in circulation a dollar less,
raises the price of gold, disturbs the market, and disgraces our
credit; and yet, because it is locked up in the treasury, and we
will not pass a law sending it out, our credit must go down and
down, further and further, as Mr. Lamar and his coadjutors in
the Rebel States desire it shall go down, and as his coadjutors
in the Northern States seem to desire it shall go down. They

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 37

are talking in the most anxious manner here — witness the last
speech to which we have listened — of returning to a specie
basis. Do not gentlemen upon this floor know that no great
war was ever waged in modern times with specie? It is one of
the settled and inevitable laws of trade, that great wars must be
conducted with a paper currency, and not with gold.

Now, why do we ask that this great amount of capital shall
be, from time to time, liberated? For the best reason in the
world. Generally I would not interfere with the laws of trade ;
they are as immutable as the laws of nature ; but I would now
interfere with them because they are not in a natural and normal
condition ; they are in a condition superinduced by the necessi-
ties of war, and it is to counteract this abnormal state of trade
that we are disposed to let loose this gold so as to keep up the
credit of the government. What has so changed the character
of gold? It is hardly to be called the representative of value;
it is fast becoming a commodity, instead of a medium of ex-
change ; and if the war continues very much longer it will be
merely a commodity, and not a circulating medium. It is well
known that, when paper currency comes into general use, it
expels gold, and that such is its natural tendency. Our gold is
scattered over the border, driven to Canada, sent abroad, and
the amount actually in use in the business of the country is so
small that, if we reduce it by locking up $50,000,000 in the
vaults of the treasury, we shall create a panic that will ruin the
business of the country.

The gentleman from Ohio ^ has offered an amendment, that
this surplus shall be paid to the soldiers in the field. I remem-
ber the political capital that some gentlemen on the other side
of the House attempted to make on the subject of paying sai-
lors and soldiers in coin ; and I remember a remark which was
made, and which what I see in the galleries this morning almost
prohibits me from repeating, but that a sense of justice requires
that I should repeat. It was charged on the other side of the
House, that, if we did not pay our sailors and soldiers in gold,
their wives would become prostitutes. I stood here as a man
abashed ; I stood amazed and ashamed that I belonged to a
body in which such an utterance could be made about the loyal
women of this country.

Every gentleman upon this floor knows well that it is impos-

1 Mr. Long.

38 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

sible now to return to a specie basis. Every man who has
looked into the condition of the country knows that it is impos-
sible, without utter prostration and ruin, to attempt to return to
a specie basis at this time. It becomes us, then, to use the gold
that we have to keep up the credit of the country, and not to
destroy it ; and I do not propose to be deterred by references
to all those laws and resolutions that have been passed hitherto
in regard to the policy of the country.

I am not in such unfortunate circumstances as* the gentleman
from New York * who has just spoken. I am under no pres-
sure from any quarter, from any particular source, from any
particular person ; I am under no instructions from any man,
in office or out of office, how to vote, think, or act upon this
subject I have not been honored with that pressure, and I
am therefore free to act as it seems to me the pressure of the
country and its interests require; and I ask gentlemen now
whether they are willing to help to carry out the scheme of
Lamar, of Georgia, to help to reduce the value of our paper
currency, until we shall be ruined, as the Southern Confederacy
is being ruined, by its finances, rather than by its battles.

There are two elements which decide the question of war.
One is military, the other is financial. The man who destroys
the finances of a country ruins it as thoroughly as he who de-
stroys its army. It becomes us, therefore, while we replenish
our armies on the one hand, to maintain the credit of the treas-
ury on the other. For that purpose I believe this measure is
wise. I know it ought to be guarded; and any amendment
that will make it more carefully worded, and that will protect us
from all chances of fraud or corruption on the part of govern-
ment officials, I shall be glad to vote for. But I am unwilling
that we should defeat the purpose of the resolution, and lock up
this money, on the old idea that money locked in vaults is as
good as money in circulation.

On the 15th of March following, the measure having been to the Sen-
ate and returned to the House, Mr. Garfield made these remarks. As
finally adopted and approved, the joint resolution authorized the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to anticipate the payment of interest, and to " dis-
pose of any gold in the treasury not necessary for the payment of inter-

1 Mr. Brooks.

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 39

est on the public debt/' provided the obligation to create the sinking fund
should not be impaired.

Mr. Speaker, — I design to detain the House but a few
minutes with what I have to say on this subject ; but I wish to
state what seems to me the present condition of the question.
There have been so many things said, we have wandered so far
from the proposition before the House, that I wish to restate
the question as it now lies before us.

This House passed a joint resolution authorizing the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to dispose of the surplus gold by antici-
pating the payment of interest on the public debt. There were
two principal reasons assigned why we should dispose of this
gold : first, that it was accumulating on our hands faster than
we had any legal means of using it; and secondly, that, by
thus accumulating, it was causing a continually increasing strin-
gency in the gold market, with a consequent rise of price. It
seemed therefore just, that, as by law we had interfered with
the gold market, we should by law provide for curing that
interference. We all recognize the fact, that, if gold continues
to advance, it very much injures, not only the people at large,
but also the government and its securities. It has been proved
by more accurate statistics than we had before us on the 8th
of March, when the House acted on this matter, that by the
17th of July next there will be nearly thirty million dollars of
surplus gold in the treasury. That has been tested by the most
careful estimates possible, not only here, but in the other wing
of the Capitol.

Now, Mr. Speaker, three ways for returning this gold into the
general circulation have been proposed. The first is by direct
sale, — the proposition that comes to us from the Senate.
The second is by anticipating the payment of interest. And
the third is by creating a sinking fund, as already provided
for by law. As to the second and third, I have only a word
to say.

To create a sinking fund as provided by law is at present sim-
ply an absurdity. I see no wisdom in buying up the bonds of
the government when we are now borrowing $2,cxx),cxx) a day
to meet our current expenses. It makes the government enact
the farce of borrowing money of itself. It is true that we are
required by law to create a sinking fund, but no one can charge

40 THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD.

us with a breach of faith if we refrain from creating such a
fund while we are still borrowing. We can repeal that law alto-
gether without any violation of the faith of the country.

Now, suppose we anticipate the interest on the public debt,
with or without rebate, as provided by the original bill which
passed this House on the 8th instant. Everybody knows that
no man would receive prepayment and allow an abatement of
interest. Why? Money in the New York market is now worth
but little more than five per cent, and of course no man will
call in his money drawing a larger rate of interest and immedi-
ately reinvest it at a lower rate. Therefore we may as well
dismiss from our minds any hope that we can get a rebate by
anticipating the interest on our bonds ; and the proposition to
undertake to pay our debts before they are due, while at the
same time we are borrowing money to pay debts overdue, is so
absurd that a plain statement of it is its best refutation.

Another objection to the bill as it passed the House is, that
the remedy is inadequate to meet the difficulty we seek to ob-
viate. If we conclude to anticipate the payment of interest, the
process will be so slow as to have no appreciable effect upon
the gold market It takes weeks to make the small monthly
payments of interest as they become due ; and if we undertake
to pay them before they are due, the process will be still slower,
and will utterly fail to bring down the price of gold. Let me
read an extract from one of the daily journals, published the
morning after the passage of the bill by the House, showing
how it was regarded by the commercial men of New York. I
read from the New York Commercial Advertiser, of March 9th.

" After four o'clock, the news of the passage of Mr. Boutwell's gold
bill reached the market. The bill merely authorizes the Secretary of
the Treasury to anticipate the payment of interest on the public debt
from time to time, with or without a rebate of interest upon the coupons,
as to him may seem expedient. In this amended form it passed, ninety
against thirty-four, — a very strong vote, • which seems to fvyi the policy
of Congress. This amounts to nothing in the way of relief, since it is of
no practical value whether the ^3,000,000 due on the ist of April, and
the ^15,000,000 due on the ist of May, are begun to be paid now or
then. It will take a month at least to pay the 1815,000,000. When
;S6,ooo,ooo was due on November ist, it required the whole month to
complete the payments, and the price of gold was not affected at all.
The Secretary lias now the same duty as before, to apply the gold to

THE SALE OF SURPLUS GOLD. 41

the purchase of stock for the sinking fund, a process which would freely
deplete the treasury. On the promulgation of the passage of this bill,
gold, which had been dull at 163 J, immediately rose to 164^, and in
the evening sales reached 165I.

" This morning the assemblage at the gold rooms was prompt, and
the opening price was 165 J.

"The demand continued very active, and the rate soon touched 168,
when a little reaction set in, and it declined to 16 7 J, and again recov-
ered to 168^ to i68| at 12 M.

" The rate for exchange went up in the same proportion, and sales
were made at 181 J, but this rate is still lower than gold."

Now see the result. The business men of New York, who
are perfectly familiar with the whole subject, took it up, and the
moment the bill was passed declared what the result would be.
They knew how perfectly futile would be its effect on the price
of gold, and up went gold eight or nine per cent in a single day.
They saw by how large a majority the bill had passed the House,
and they considered that majority an indication that the House
would insist upon its action. It seems to me there is a practi-
cal lesson, which this House should not fail to profit by, in
the consequences which followed our action when this bill was
originally passed.

Wc have, therefore, proposed as a remedy for the present
difficulty growing out of the accumulation of gold in the treas-
ury; first, the creation of a sinking fund; next, the anticipation
of the payment of the interest on the public debt; neither of
which, as I have already shown, is at all adequate to meet the
present emergency. We have, then, in the third place, the
proposition to place in the hands of the Secretary of the Treas-
ury the power, after reserving in the treasury an amount of
gold sufficient to provide for the payment of the interest in coin,
to take the large balance, and so wield it as to knock down the
price of gold; and if at the same time he knocks down the gold
speculators, they will meet a just reward for their presumptuous
sins. ** Let them not have dominion over us." Sir, it will be
a power that can be wielded for good, not only now, but at any
time in the future, as the nature of the case may require. I be-
lieve that the proposition contained in the amendment of the
Senate is, on the whole, the best that we can adopt

FREE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March 24 and 31, 1864.

Towards the close of the war, the urgent need of additional railroad
facilities between Washington City and the Northern and Eastern States
became painfully apparent. January 6, 1864, the House of Represent-
atives created a special committee of nine members, " with authority to
examine into the expediency of the establishment of a new route for
postal and other purposes" between Washington and New York. Of
this committee Mr. Garfield was a member. Various propositions were
submitted at that session ; but the only one that seriously arrested the
attention of the House and the country was a bill reported from the
Military Committee, March 9, " to declare certain roads military road's
and post-roads." This bill was introduced in response to a petition of
the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad Company, asking to have their
road declared a lawful structure, and a post and military road of the
United States. This was the case, as stated by Mr. H. C. Deming, of
Connecticut, who introduced the measure and opened the debate, March
17, 1864.

" The petitioners have constructed a raib-oad from Port Monmouth,
near Sandy Hook, to Atsion, which lies nearly east of Philadelphia, and
it is connected by the Batsto branch with the Camden and Atlantic Rail-
road Company. Thus, by means of the road they have constructed, by
means of the Batsto branch, and by means of the Camden and Atlantic
Railroad Company, they have a railroad constructed from Port Mon-
mouth, near Sandy Hook, to Camden, which is opposite the city of
Philadelphia. They have also a steamboat running fbom the city of New
York to Port Monmouth, and a ferry running from Camden to Phila-
delphia ; and thus, by means of their raib-oads, their steamboats, and
their ferry, they have a continuous through line from the city of New
York to the city of Philadelphia. In one great emergency of the na-
tion, shortly after the battle of Antietam, when there was a universal
panic through the country, when the interests of the republic were
most seriously imperilled, this continuous through line from New York to

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 43

Philadelphia was able to render great service to the nation, and actually
carried over this through line upwards of seventeen thousand troops, and
upwards of eight hundred thousand pounds of munitions of war. Shortly
after they had performed this great service to the country, a petition for
an injunction was brought against them by the Camden and Amboy
Raihoad Company before the Chancellor of New Jersey ; and since this
subject has been before the committee, a decree of the Chancellor has
been issued in that case, a synopsis of which will be found in the report
which accompanies this bill. The Chancellor enjoins the use of the
petitioners' road, except for local purposes, and orders that the Raritan
and Delaware Bay Railroad Company pay to the Camden and Amboy
Railroad Company all sums collected by the former for through business,
including the amount received for transportation of troops; and the
Ch^hcellor decrees that the petitioners* road has no right to carry or
aid in carrying, passengers and freight between New York and Philadel-
phia. The effect of this decision, as the House will see, is to destroy
this road as a continuous through road between New York and Phila-
delphia. It confines it to local business between Camden and Port
Monmouth. It cuts off both ends of the road, cuts off the steamboat
transportation on the Raritan Bay, and the ferry upon the Delaware
River, thus destroying the road as a continuous through route between
New York and Philadelphia.

"Under these circumstances the petitioners come to Congress for
relief, praying that their road and its branches, and its accompanying
ferries, may be declared lawful structures, and also post and military
roads of the United States." ^

Upon this bill, March 24 and 31, Mr. Garfield made this speech.
May 13, the House struck out all after the enacting clause, and inserted
the following : " That every railroad company in the United States,
whose road is operated by steam, its successors and assigns, be and is
hereby authorized to carry upon and over its road, connections, boats,
bridges, and ferries, all freight, property, mails, passengers, troops, and
government supplies, on their way from one State to another State, and
to receive compensation therefor." In this form the bill passed, with
the title, " A Bill to regulate Commerce among the several States." A
vote on the bill was never reached in the Senate.

But this was not the end of the measure. Early the next session, Mr.
Garfield himself reintroduced the bill in the form just given. After be-
ing amended, so as to allow railroads " to connect with roads of other
States, so as to form continuous lines," and denying them the right " to
build any new road, or connect with any other road, without authority
from the State in which said railroad or connection may be proposed,"
the bill passed, and became a law, June 15, 1866. In some remarks

* Congressional Globe, March 17, p 1165.

44 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

made on December 19, 1865, Mr. Garfield said that the bill was ''a plain
determination of the right of Congress to regulate commerce between
the States/' and that it "struck a blow at those hateful monopolies
which had been so long preying upon the body of American industry."
Kindred topics were discussed by him, May 30 and 31, 1866, in re-
marks upon the bill to make the Cleveland and Mahoning Railroad a
military, postal, and commercial railroad of the United States.

MR. SPEAKER, — Before I proceed to discuss the merits
of this bill, I must express my disapprobation of all
those remarks, of which we have heard very many since this
debate began, respecting the probable motives of the com-
mittees and members of this House. Such considerations are
wholly unworthy of ourselves and our position.

The gentleman from New Jersey^ has intimated that the
Committee on Military Affairs was not unanimous in its action
upon this bill. I should like to know by what authority he
makes that assertion. If any member of the Military Commit-
tee is opposed to the bill, he can speak for himself. We have
also been told that there are outside influences at work here ;
that the lobbies are full of corporation agents, crowding around
us on all hands, and pressing their influences upon the commit-
tees and the House. I have only to say, that such remarks are
wholly unworthy of this place, and should be condemned as
undignified and unbefitting the character of men holding the
high place of legislators for the American nation.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ who has just addressed
the House stated that New Jersey politics, New Jersey inter-
ests, and New Jersey legislation were brought before us and
animadverted upon in order to control our action. This is all
small-talk aside from the issue, and should not have a feather's
weight in determining the action of this body. He treats the
Raritan and Atlantic Railroad as a part of a proposed air-line
road, and reads us a lesson from the hornbooks of geometry to
prove that this broken line of roads does not satisfy Euclid's
definition of a straight line. We do not need discussions of
that sort to enable us to understand the nature of a monopoly,
or our duty as legislators. The question before us is a part of
the larger one of increasing the railroad facilities between New

^ Mr. Rogers. > Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 45

York and Washington. The considerations which bear upon
that question bear also upon this.

It is a notorious fact, that the means of communication be-
tween the commercial metropolis and the political metropolis
of this country are exceedingly deficient. This cannot be de-
nied. We have it from the Post-Office Department, we have it
from the War Department, we have it from the business public,
and we have it from the experience of every gentleman who
has travelled over this route, or who has had occasion to trans-
port freight over it, — that there can scarcely be found in the
United States any two important cities with railroad facilities
so inadequate as those between New York and Washington.

It is a fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House,
and I have the consent of the committee to which I belong to
state it, that, in reply to a letter addressed to him, the Quarter-
master-General states that the facilities of the present roads
are not sufficient for the transportation of forage for the ani-
mals belonging to the Army of the Potomac and the troops
about this city. He states officially that it requires three hun-
dred and seventy-five car-loads of long forage and seventy-four
car-loads of short forage per day to feed the animals belong-
ing to the army in front of Washington. This does not include
transportation of quartermasters* stores. It does not include
commissary supplies. It does not include the ordinary necessi-
ties of trade in this capital. It includes only this one item, —
the supply of the animals of the army, which requires four hun-
dred and forty-nine car-loads of forage per day; all of which
must come to the city of Washington over a single track, the
only means of access in time of winter to the capital of the
nation. A large part of these supplies come over the line
between New York and this place. At the time of the ice
blockade, on the 1st of January last and the week succeed-
ing, the Quartermaster-General reported that he received but
t\\'enty car-loads of forage for a whole week. He should have
received seven times four hundred and forty-nine car-loads.
The Potomac, and the railroad itself, which in two places
crosses an arm of the sea, were blockaded with ice.

The quartermaster further reported, that, if the blockade had
continued one week longer, the animals of the army would have
been in a starving condition. It stands before this government as
a matter of fact, that had the ice remained in the river two weeks

46 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

longer, the animals of the army of the Potomac would have
perished. You could not have fed your army, you could not
have preserved your animals, you could not have maintained
your war, if the providence of God had not broken the fetters
of winter ; for the simple reason that a power not in the hands
of the government, but in the hands of a great corporation,
holds the key to all communication between this city and the
outside world.

Now the question comes, Has this government the right to
protect itself? has this nation the right to feed itself? has it the
right to feed its army? If it has any of these rights, it has the
consequent right to adopt and use the means necessary to ac-
complish the purpose. No small-talk about New Jersey or
Pennsylvania politics, no small-talk about an air line, a broken
line, or a curved line, will meet the gigantic fact which stares
Congress in the face, that we must feed our army, and to do so
must increase our railroad facilities from this place to the out-
side world, and most of all between this city and the great com-
mercial metropolis of the nation. I pass from this general
consideration to the specific one, the bill before us.

Mr. Morris. The gentleman speaks of obstructions by ice. I wish
to inquire whether they will be remedied in the future if this bill is
passed. In other words. Is the obstruction on either of the roads in
this bill?

I will answer, that the proposed new road, for the construc-
tion of which the select committee on that subject has prepared
a bill, will be on a line above tide-water, where all the streams
can be permanently bridged, thereby avoiding the ice and com-
pletely answering the question which the gentleman raises.

I have thus far only stated the fact that we are miserably and
notoriously deficient in means of communication between this
city and New York ; and anything we can do to increase the
facilities between this city and that will help the business of
transportation.

The legislature of New Jersey has done what, perhaps, it
had the right to do^ I do not interfere with that, and I do not
ask this House to legislate for New Jersey, but for the Union.
That State chartered a railroad between New York and Phila-
delphia, and placed limitations and restrictions in the charter of
that road. It provided that no other road should do through
business between these two cities. That is the point with which

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 47

we have to deal here. Suppose New Jersey had made a law
that there should never be any railroad through her territory.
If she were isolated, like Florida, she probably might have
made sucli a law without wrong to her sister States, and it
could not have been considered an interference with commerce
between the States ; but if New Jersey, located as she is, had
passed such a law, would any one deny the right of the general
government to order or permit the construction of a new road
across that State for the general good of the country?

Let us take a stronger case. There is one State, — New
York, — whose territory cuts the Union in two. Its northern
boundary touches the British dominions ; its southern, the sea ;
and it forms the only land connection between New England
and the West Suppose New York should decree that there
should forever be no railroads within her limits ; then no man
in New England could reach the West, except by the sea or
through a foreign country. Or suppose, instead of such a law
as that, she should declare that there should be but one rail-
road across her territory, — but one highway between New
England and the West ; and suppose that that road could do
but three fourths of the required business ; I ask if that would
not be precisely the same as though New York should decree
that one fourth of all the necessary business between New Eng-
land and the West should never be done, and if she would not
thus destroy one fourth of all the commerce between those sec-
tions of the country? And I ask any gentleman if, in that
event, he would not consider it our duty to give the rights of
New England and the West a hearing on this floor, — to re-
voke that decision of New York, and declare that free course
should be given to the commerce between the Great West and
the New England States? It seems to me that no sane man
can doubt it

A thing precisely similar has been done by the State of New
Jersey. She does not span the continent; she does not reach
from the ocean to Canada ; but she does lie between the po-
litical centre and the commercial centre of this country ; and
it happens to be in her power, if we do not exercise a superior
power, to say that there shall be no road, or but one, between
those two great cities. She has chosen not to interdict all
roads, but to say there shall be no commerce between Wash-
ington and New York beyond what one road is able and willing

48 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

to carry on. Who will deny that this is, pro tantOy an interdic-
tion of commerce, — a decision that all the surplus business
over and above what the Camden and Amboy road can do,
shall not be done at all? If there is ever offered for transpor-
tation over that road one pound of freight more than it can
carry, and carry promptly. New Jersey has decided by solemn
law that that pound of freight shall not be carried by rail-
road across her territory. She has absolutely interdicted it.
It is to meet this case that the power of Congress is now
invoked.

Now, what constitjutional powers do we possess in this be-
half? If gentlemen will take time to read the very able report
of my colleague on the Military Committee, the gentleman from
Connecticut,^ they will see that five distinct times has the Con-
gress of the United States affirmed and exercised the- right to
establish military and post roads, and to regulate commerce
between the States, by permitting the opening of roads and the
construction of bridges. *And not only so, but on one memo-
rable occasion, fresh in all our recollections. Congress actually
annulled a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
on a similar question. The Supreme Court declared the
Wheeling bridge a public nuisance; decided that it existed
without sufficient warrant of law, and should be removed; and
immediately on the rendering of that decision Congress passed
a law declaring the structure a lawful one, and part of a post-
road, any law of any State or decision of any court to the con-
trary notwithstanding. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania *
who has just taken his seat claim that this was an indignity to
the Supreme Court? He says that the legislation now pro-
posed is an indignity to the legislature and the judiciary of New
Jersey. New Jersey has risen very high in her dignity if the
Congress of the United States can insult her by legislating as it
has done five times before. If New Jersey is insulted by this
legislation, what will the gentleman say of the Supreme Court
of the United States, whose decision was at once revoked by
act of Congress? I know of no power on earth that should
possess more dignity than the sovereignty of the American
people in Congress assembled. I know of no body politic,
corporate or national, that can be insulted by the legitimate
and constitutional action of this body.

^ Mr. Deming. « Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 49

Mr. Broomall. The gentleman is certainly mistaken in supposing
that I claimed the want of power in Congress to make such enactments,
or that I stated that the dignity of the State of New Jersey would be in-
sulted. I claimed no dignity for New Jersey, and denied no power to
Congress ; I merely denied the policy of amending New Jersey legis-
lation by act of Congress.

If the gentleman's statement of his own position be correct, —
and of course I accept it, but I distinctly understood him other-
wise,— I still do not agree with him that we should never inter-
fere with and amend things that are wrong. I take it to be our
special duty here to do justice ; and if any State has usurped
the prerogatives of this body, it is our duty to correct that in-
justice by amending or abrogating its action. I am very glad
that the gentleman has taken away all suspicion that he denies
the power of Congress to legislate on this subject.

Now, what are the facts in relation to this New Jersey rail-
road ? That it is a complete and sweeping monopoly, no man
can deny. That it has furnished the revenues and paid the ex-
penses of that State for many years, is undeniable. Not a dol-
lar of tax for the current expenses of her government did New
Jersey levy for years until the war began. The Camden and
Amboy Railroad Company has paid $2,600,000 into the treas-
ury of the State since it received its charter. And that has been
collected, not on the local business, but on the through business
from Philadelphia to New York, nine tenths of it the business
of persons not citizens of New Jersey. Disguise it under any
color you please. New Jersey's taxes have been paid by citizens
of other States. Her burdens have been borne by citizens of
Pennsylvania, of New York, of the West, of New England, and
not by her own citizens.

It is very true that, if a citizen of New Jersey chances to be
in Philadelphia, and buys his ticket to New York, he pays his
ten cents of tax to the State ; but it is also true that, if his jour-
ney is wholly within New.Jersey, he pays less per mile than he
would as a through passenger. This has been a crying shame
before the people of the country. Men of justice and equity
have condemned it everywhere. I say it without any ill feeling
toward New Jersey or her people. It has brought a cloud over
the fair fame of the State, which, were I a representative from
the State, I should be the first to desire to see removed.

Now, what is the purpose of the bill before us? A line of

VOL. I. 4

50 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

road has been constructed from Raritan Bay to Philadelphia, or
rather to the middle of the river, opposite Philadelphia. The
Supreme Court of New Jersey has decided, first, that the road
is a legal structure. Let that be noted. But it has also de-
clared, that, although the road is a legal structure, no man can
ride over it ; that no freight can be carried over it from Phila-
delphia to New York. The court has sealed up the two ends
of the road. It has sealed it at the middle of the river oppo-
site Philadelphia. It has sealed it at high-water mark, on Rari-
tan Bay. Now, what is asked of Congress? We are asked to
commence at the State line and unseal one end of the road;
and we are asked to go to high-water mark, at the boundary of
the ocean, which is under our exclusive jurisdiction, and unseal
the other end of the road. That is what we are asked to do.

But I am informed that the morning hour has expired. I
have a few more words to add when the consideration of this
bill is resumed.

On the 31st of March the debate was renewed, and Mr. Garfield con-
tinued as follows : — \

Mr. Speaker, — When this subject was last before the House,
I submitted a few remarks, but the morning hour expired before
I concluded. I then undertook to show, by the reports of the
Quartermaster-General and the Postmaster-General, that oiir
communications between this city and the city of New York
are notoriously insufficient for the wants of the government and
the general public. That statement was demonstrated by quo-
tations from official reports. I then made the point that, if any
State prohibited the construction of more than one line of com-
munication, and that line was not sufficient for all the business
required, it was, pro tanto, an inhibition of transportation across
that State. I showed conclusively, I think, that such was the fact
in regard to transportation across the State of New Jersey, and
the prohibition which now exists is, in -fact, a refusal to grant the
necessary rights of transit across the territory of that State, and
a direct interference with commerce between the States.

I know that the gentleman who preceded me^ stated that,
while he was in favor of an " air line," or direct route across
New Jersey, he was not in favor of an " elbow line," or circuit-
ous route. I answer, if the route is a circuitous one, and less

^ Mr. Broomall.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 51

eligible for the purposes of commerce, it cannot be competitive
unless transportation by the usual route is insufficient If you
allow that the present road is insufficient, why not permit the
use of a circuitous road rather than cripple the commerce of
the country? But the new road is competitive, because the old
one is not sufficient. The government has transported over
the elbow " route," during the past season, 3 1 ,394 United States
troops, 620 horses, and 108 car-loads of baggage for the troops
thus transported. The road is a competitive route, and a New
Jersey court has so decided. Why competitive? Because, in
railroad travelling, time is a more important element than dis-
tance, and the running time of the new road between Philadel-
phia and New York is ten minutes less than that of the Camden
and Amboy between the same places. It is true the distance is
twenty-three miles greater, yet, because of the sparsely settled
country through which it passes, there are fewer stopping-
places, fewer hindrances to travel, and hence it is a quicker
route. It does its business more rapidly and promptly than the
Camden and Amboy.

The present monopoly complains that greater facilities for
transportation have been afforded to the American people. It
has itself furnished testimony of its own inability to meet all the
demands of commerce. In a document which its directors have
circulated among the members of this House, they attempt to
show that they have filled all orders promptly and thoroughly.
One of their own witnesses, however, a captain in the army,
says : —

" In answer to the several interrogations contained in the pencil memo-
randum which you handed me yesterday I have to state as follows, viz. : —

" Fourth interrogation. — Camden and Amboy Railroad could have
carried more troops at any time than were offered. I have no means of
knowing how many troops could have been carried if the whole facilities
of that road had been given to the government ; but the demands at times
have been very heavy, probably more than any one road in this or any
other country could have met without considerable delay. Troops have
often been sent by steamer to Washington to relieve the railroads.

" D. Stimson,
Captain and Assistant Quartermaster,^*

Who is it that complains of the increased facilities of the new
road? Who comes into court and claims to be aggrieved? It
is the Camden and Amboy Railroad, and no other.

52 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

I hold in my hand a book which ought to be called the Regis-
ter of Greatness and Official Dignitaries, or rather the Blue
Book of the State of New Jersey. It is a collection of the
official reports of the Camden and Amboy monopoly from the
formation of the company to the present time, and I venture to
say that such another book cannot be found in America. The
monopoly has taken New Jersey under its protection. It praises,
admonishes, or censures New Jersey, according as she follows or
disregards the standard of the Camden and Amboy monopoly's
theory of political economy. I venture to say that a parallel to
the records of this book cannot be found in the history of the
republic. I will present some of the facts which it contains.

In 1 846 the monopoly issued an address to the people of New
Jersey. It tells them that New Jersey is vastly superior to her
sister States in the management of public concerns ; it goes on
to say that Pennsylvania and New York have foolishly expended
money in public improvements and developing their material
wealth, and then concludes, with an air of triumph, as follows :
" New Jersey has no coal lands or salt springs to be converted
into monopolies ; but she has a most enviable geographical po-
sition in the Union, which it is her duty to improve for the
benefit of her citizens. She has done so in the manner deemed
most advisable and profitable, and has reason to be proud of
the wisdom which dictated her policy."

She has " improved her geographical position " by creating a
sweeping monopoly, and taxing all freight and passengers be-
tween the great commercial cities of Pennsylvania and New
York. The monopoly congratulates New Jersey on her cunning
device to raise taxes without cost to herself.

This monopoly is sometimes as " 'umble " as Uriah Heep, and
at others as proud as Lucifer. When it wants favors from the
legislature of New Jersey, it is very humble ; but when the State
wants favors from it, it is exceedingly haughty. In i860, the
monopoly came before the country for a loan of $6,000,000.
To secure it on reasonable terms it became necessary to exhibit
the resources of the company. To do this, the company issued
one of its proclamations to the people of New Jersey. Let it be
remembered that this monopoly tells the people of New Jersey
that it relies chiefly on New York and Philadelphia for the
money it makes. It exhibits the condition of the joint com-
panies as follows : —

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 53

" I. The peculiar advantage of their geographical position. 2. The
extent and number of railway lines now belonging to the joint companies,
compared with their single line of sixty-one miles in 1834. 3. The reve-
nues of the companies now, compared with the estimate of probable
revenue in the infancy of their enterprise.

" The cities of New York and Philadelphia, which are connected to-
gether by our canal and railways, are still in advance of all other cities in
the United States in wealth, population, and commercial advantages. It
has been upon their growth and prosperity that we have chiefly relied for
revenue and its progressive increase. This reliance has not been indulged
unwisely.

"In 1834 the net income of the company was $450,000. By refer-
ence to the annual sworn report of the State Directors, made in January,
i860, to the legislature of New Jersey, it will be seen that the net in-
come of the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company from their differ-
ent through lines of railway was $91 1,242, and that of the canal company
"^^ tzZSA^9\ in all, 1 1,246,371; being nearly three times greater in
amount than the original estimates of income in 1834

" The population of the United States doubles in a little over twenty-
three years, and that of the cities of New York and Philadelphia in about
eighteen years ; but the revenues of the joint companies increase in a
ratio exceeding that of the increase of the population of New York and
Riiladelphia ; and when in twenty-five years New York and Philadelphia
may each contain two million people, and the United States sixty million,
the annual revenues of the joint companies may be safely estimated at
$5,000,000.

" It is no exaggeration to say, that there is not on the continent of
North America any railway or canal franchise so valuable as that of the
joint companies. They possess a capacious canal, itself worth more this
day than the whole amount which we propose to borrow upon the secu-
rity of the united companies.

" They are proprietors likewise of one entire through line, and of two
thirds of a second line of railway connecting two great cities, the com-
mercial emporiums of the Western world. They have a controlling prop-
erty also in a line of railway, more than one hundred miles in extent,
reaching into the coal and iron fields of Pennsylvania, the products of
which annually augment with the unbounded demand, which is ever in
advance of their supply.

" The interest of the State of New Jersey is identified with that of the
joint companies, as we have said before, and she is relieved from the
necessity of imposing any State tax by the ample revenue which she
derives fix)m the companies.

" New Jersey is distinguished for the conservative character of her
people and her legislation ; and when her citizens have invested their

S4 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

capital in works designed for the public benefit, she has always refused
to impair the value of franchise devoted to such objects by the creation
of a rival. Efforts indeed have, within the past thirty years, been some-
times made to induce the legislature of New Jersey to grant charters for
rival railroads, but invariably without success. What could not be done
when, in the infancy of the companies, the revenue of the State derived
from them was small, need excite* no apprehensions now, when the whole
expense of the State government is provided for from the income fur-
nished by the business of our railroads and canal."

Was ever anything so barefaced? The monopoly comes here
boasting of wealth unprecedented, of rights and franchises un-
paralleled, and of drawing its chief wealth from citizens outside
of New Jersey, because that State has a geographical position
which enables her to make money out of the cities of other
States I And this is the party which comes here and asks us to
forbid the Raritan road to exercise the right of transportation
between New York and Philadelphia !

How have the joint companies managed their matters and
made their money? The charter of their road prohibited them
from charging more than three dollars for a passenger fare be-
tween Philadelphia and New York, and yet from the year 1835 to
1849 they charged four dollars in the face of the law. In 1842,
however, the legislature of New Jersey determined that one half
of all that the company charged above three dollars should be
paid into the treasury of the State ; in other words, the State
said to the company, " If you will steal, give us half the steal-
ings ; we really cannot prevent you, but if you are bound to do
it, give us half the proceeds." But they never did even that.

I will call the attention of the House to another fact. This
line of roads between New York and Philadelphia is ninety miles
long, and the passenger fare is now three dollars. I desire to
compare this with some other rates of fare as I find them quoted
in a daily journal : New York to Philadelphia, 90 miles, $3 ;
Hudson River to Rhinebeck, 91 miles, $1.80; Harlem to Albany,
154 miles, $3 ; Erie to Port Jervis, 87 miles, $2.10; Lackawanna
to Stroudsburg, 90 miles, $2.55 ; New Haven and Hartford to
Meriden, 94 miles, $2.34; New Haven and New London to
Guilford, 94 miles, $2.35. All these routes save one are longer
than the Camden and Amboy, and some of them charge but a
little more than half the fare. The road from Harlem to Albany
is one hundred and fifty-four miles long, and charges just three

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 55

dollars, while this New Jersey monopoly charges the same for
ninety miles.

The companies have violated all the common laws of whole-
sale and retail trade. It is generally understood that a pound
of coffee costs more pro rata than a thousand pounds. But if
you travel ten miles in New Jersey, you are charged less per
mile than if you travel ninety miles. The local rates within the
limits of the State are not half so great as the through rates
between New York and Philadelphia. It is by this kind of out-
rageous violation of all the laws of trade that New Jersey has
made money out of this country.

Now what does this monopoly ask? Here is the prayer its
attorney makes to the Chancellor of New Jersey : —

" My first point was that the road had been used, by their own admis-
sion, for the transportation of soldiers and munitions of wai ; the fact
that they allege as an ample and sufficient excuse, is that this was done by
order of the Secretary of War. I insist that, no matter by whose order it
was done, it was a transportation of passenger and freight by railway
across the State and between the cities, in every sense of the words.
.... By which New Jersey is robbed of her tax of ten cents on each
passenger. .... I say it is no defence whatever, if they have suc-
ceeded in obtaining an order of the Secretary of War, when we call upon
them to give us the money they made by it ; and that is one of our calls.
Ihey have no right to get an order to deprive the State of New Jersey of
the right of transit duty, which is her adopted policy."

In other words^, this gigantic monopoly, that reaches into the
heart of Pennsylvania and other States and draws its life-blood
from them, demands that the new road, which has served the
government in the transportation of troops and munitions of
war, shall pay over all its earnings to its grasping rival.

What answer did the Chancellor of New Jersey make to this
demand? I have it here.^ He decided, in the first place, that
the Raritan road is a legal structure from Camden to Port Mon-
mouth,— from the western to the eastern line of the State. In
the next place, that no passengers or freight shall be taken over
it from Philadelphia to New York. What kind of a decision is
that? Is not New Jersey thus legislating for New York and
Philadelphia? She says that a man may go by this route from
one border of the State to the other, but not beyond. The road
is a legal one, but no man can pass over it and across the State

1 See N. J Eq. Reports, i Green, 321-382.

L

56 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

without robbing her of her ten cents tax ! That is the decision
of New Jersey ; and if it is not legislation for New York and
Pennsylvania, there can be no such thing as interference with
the legislation of other States. Under the Chancellor's decision,
the Raritan company has been compelled to instruct its agents
to sell no tickets unless they know, of their own knowledge, that
the party purchasing is not going through the State. The re-
sult is to destroy at least one third of the local business ; but
the company is compelled to do it to save itself from further
injunction.

It has been asked why this matter comes here. Because,
in obeying the orders of the Secretary of War in transport-
ing troops and munitions of war, the Raritan road has been
wronged ; and it comes to the Congress of the nation for re-
dress. The Military Committee has recommended that it shall
have redress.

I believe no gentleman here will deny that Congress has am-
ple power to establish military and post roads, to maintain the
government, and feed its armies. But there is another power
which should not be overlooked. I mean the power to regulate
commerce between the States. That power has been repeat-
edly declared by the courts to reside exclusively in the Con-
gress of the United States. It was so decided in Gibbons v,
Ogden,^ in the Passenger Cases,^ and in the Wheeling Bridge
Case.^ It is a decision so frequently made that no gentleman of
any legal learning will risk his reputation by a* denial of it.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have something more than the mere
statement of the right. We have the admission of the State of
New Jersey that Congress has this right ; and if any person or
any power on earth may come in to deny it, New Jersey is by
her own act forever estopped from making that denial. I call
your attention to a law of New Jersey passed February 4, 183 1.
In the sixth section of that act she says : —

" Be it macted^ That when any other railroad, or roads, for the trans-
portation of passengers and property between New York and Philadel-
phia, across this State, shall be constructed and used for that purpose,
under or by virtue of any law of this State or the United States^ author-
izing or recognizing said road, that then and in that case the said divi-
dends shall be no longer payable to the State, and the said stock shall be
re-transferred to the company by the treasurer of this State."

1 9 Wheaton, i. '7 Howard, 283. • 13 Howard, 518, and 18 Howard, 421.

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 57

This law required the acceptance of the company to make it
valid, and the company did accept it four days after its passage.
A solemn compact — New Jersey is addicted to the use of that
word — was thus made between the State and the company,
that when Congress shall see fit to authorize and establish a
road, or to recognize one already established, then the Camden
and Amboy Company shall lose its special privileges. The
parties not only admit that Congress may do it, but they unite
in a solemn compact in which that very action of Congress is a
condition. That, sir, is the thing I desire Congress now to do ;
when it is done, the monopoly will be dead forever.

New Jersey took another step in the same direction in 1854.
She extended the monopoly charter ten years. The law by
which it is extended is prefaced by a most extraordinary pre-
amble, and that may be thus summed up : " Whereas the legis-
lature of New Jersey has granted to the Camden and Amboy
Railroad Company special and exclusive privileges, in consid-
eration of," etc., etc *' And whereas the extinguishment

of these privileges is a matter of great public importance:
Therefore, Be it enacted," etc.

Mark that ! The extinguishment of these privileges is a mat"
ter of great public importance ; therefore we extend this monopoly
for ten years ! I do not very much admire the logic of this
law, but I do admire the preamble exceedingly. It acknowl-
edges, by the voice of New Jersey, that it is a matter of great
public concern that this exclusive privilege shall be extin-
guished. I hope Congress will listen to the desire of New Jer-
sey, and aid her in this good work.

Since this bill has been before us, and since I last had the
honor to address the House, we have heard from the Governor
and the legislature of New Jersey in regard to this bill, I ask
the indulgence of the House while I read some portions of the
proclamation of his Excellency.

" In the consideration of this question two inquiries naturally arise :
First, would the proposed action of Congress, if consummated, affect the
pecuniary interest of this State ? Secondly, and chiefly^ would such action
in6inge upon the sovereignty of the State ? . . . .

" It is for you to inquire whether the proposed action of Congress
would affect the interest of the State in the stock, dividends, or transit
duties derived from said companies.

" But the pecuniary interest of the State is of litde importance in com-

58 COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.

parison with the principle involved, and I therefore direct your attention
particularly to the second inquiry, before mentioned. New Jersey is a
sovereign State, and it is our duty, by every lawful means, to protect and
defend her sovereignty, and to transmit unimpaired to posterity all her
rights as they were received by her from our fathers. In the exercise of
her rightful powers she may build, maintain, and manage lines of public
travel within her territory, and she may grant to others the right to con-
tract works under such regulations and upon such conditions as she may
see fit to impose. When the States entered into the national compact
they yielded to the general government the right to establish post-roads
for the conveyance of mails, and power to construct military roads in
time of war, for the purpose of transportation of troops ; but even these
roads must be operated by the government, and not through the agency
or for the benefit of private corporations. A law of Congress to exceed
the powers granted by the States infringes upon the reserved rights, and
detracts from the State legislatures a portion of their rightful authority.

" Let it be distinctly understood by those who would inflict an indig-
nity upon our State, that while New Jersey will comply with every legal
obligation, and will respect and protect the rights of all, she will not per-
mit any infringement of her rights without resorting to every lawful means
to prevent it.

" Joel Parker."

Mr. Speaker, this lifls our subject above corporations and
monopolies to the full height of a national question ; I might
almost call it a question of loyalty or disloyalty. His Excel-
lency will find his political doctrines much more ably and ele-
gantly stated in Calhoun's nullification teachings of 1833, than
in his own message.

He says New Jersey is a sovereign State. I pause there for a
moment. I believe that no man will ever be able to chronicle
all the evils that have resulted to this nation from the abuse of
the words " sovereign " and " sovereignty." What is this thing
called "State Sovereignty"? Nothing more false was ever
uttered in the halls of legislation than that any State of this
Union is sovereign. Refresh your recollections of " sovereign-
ty " as defined in the elementary text-books of law. Speaking
of the sovereignty of nations, Blackstone says : " However they
began, by what right so ever they subsist, there is and must be
in all of them a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled
authority, in which the jura sutntni imperii, or rights of sover-
eignty, reside."

Do these elements belong to any State of this republic?

COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 59

Sovereignty has the right to declare war. Can New Jersey de-
clare war? Sovereignty has the right to conclude peace. Can
New Jersey conclude peace ? Sovereignty has the right to coin
money. If the legislature of New Jersey should authorize
and command one of its citizens to coin half a dollar, that
man, if he obeyed, would be locked up in a felon's cell for the
crime of counterfeiting the coin of the real sovereign. Sover-
eignty makes treaties with foreign nations. Can New Jersey
make treaties? Sovereignty regulates commerce with foreign
States, and puts ships in commission upon the high seas.
Should a ship set sail under the authority of New Jersey, it
would be seized as a smuggler, forfeited, and sold. Sover-
ignty has a flag. But, thank God ! New Jersey has no flag,
Ohio has no flag. No loyal State fights under the " lone
star," the " rattlesnake," or the " palmetto-tree." No loyal
State has any flag but the " banner of beauty and glory," the
flag of the Union.

These are the indispensable elements of sovereignty. New
Jersey has not one of them. The term can be applied only
to the separate States in a very limited and restricted sense,
referring mainly to municipal and police regulations. The
rights of the States should be jealously guarded and defended.
But to claim that sovereignty in its full sense and mean-
ing belongs to the States, is nothing better than rankest
treason.

Look again at this document of the Governor of New Jersey.
He says the States entered into the national compact. National
compact ! I had supposed that no Governor of a loyal State
would parade this dead dogma of Nullification and Secession,
which was buried by Webster on the i6th of February, 1833.
There was no such thing as a sovereign State making a com-
pact called a Constitution. The very language of the Consti-
tution is decisive : " VVe, the people of the United States, do
ordain and establish this Constitution." The States did not
make a compact to be broken when any one pleased, but the
people ordained and established the Constitution of a sovereign
republic ; and woe be to any corporation or State that raises
its hand against it!

The message closes with a determination to resist the legisla-
tion here proposed. This itself is another reason why I ask
this Congress to exercise its right, and thus rebuke this spirit of

6o COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,

nullification. The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ tells us that
New Jersey is a loyal State, and thousands of her citizens are
in the army. I am proud of all the citizens of New Jersey
who are fighting in our army. They are not fighting for New
Jersey, nor for the Camden and Amboy monopoly, but for the
Union, as against the nullification or rebellion of any State.
Patriotic men of New Jersey in the army and at home are
groaning under this tyrannical monopoly, and I hold it to
be the high right and duty of this body to strike off their
fetters.

Congress has done similar work before. It did it in the
case of the Wheeling Bridge across the Ohio. There is a still
stronger case. A corporation spanned the Ohio River at Steu-
benville under a charter granted by the State of Virginia, but
with conditions appended which could not be fulfilled. The
corporation came to Congress, and asked that the bridge might
be declared a legal structure and part of a post-road. By sol-
emn law Congress declared it to be a post-road; and no law
of the State of Virginia or of the State of Ohio to the contrary
can interfere with it. We have used this power hitherto, but
we have never before been called upon to exercise it in any
case so deserving as that which gave rise to this bill.

^ Mr. Broomall.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

SPEECH DEUVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 26, 1865.

On the 8th of February, 1864, Mr. G. H. Pendleton introduced into
the House of Representatives a joint resolution to provide that the heads
of the Executive Departments might occupy seats on the floor of that
body, which was twice read, and referred to a select committee of
seven. April 6, the measure came back from the committee amended,
and accompanied by majority and minority reports. Then the subject
was recommitted to the committee, and a motion to reconsider the
recommitment entered. May 30, the special committee was, by resolu-
tion, continued during the present Congress. At the next session, the
subject was discussed on the motion to reconsider. The resolution as
amended contained these sections : —

" That the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secre-
tary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Attorney- General, and the Postmaster- General, shall be entitled to
occupy seats on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the right
to participate in debate upon matters relating to the business of their
respective Departments, under such rules as may be prescribed by the
House.

" That the said Secretaries, the Attorney- General, and the Postmaster-
General shall attend the sessions of the House of Representatives, im-
mediately on the opening of the sittings on Mondays and Thursdays of
each week, to give information in reply to questions which may be
propounded to them under the rules of the House."

The Committee also recommended certain amendments to the Rules
of the House, deemed necessary to carry the above provisions into effect
(see Congressional Globe, January 25, 1865). The next day Mr. Gar-
field delivered the following speech, in immediate reply to Mr. S. S. Cox,
of Ohio. On March 3, the resolution was laid aside informally, and no
action was had.

62 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

MR. SPEAKER, — I will not detain the House long on this
subject. I know how difficult it is to get the attention
of members to the consideration of a grave measure when they
have just attended a place of amusement. I know how ungrate-
ful a task it is to attempt to recall their attention after the ex-
hibition to which the gentleman from Ohio ^ has treated them.
The gentleman's speech sufficiently proves that he has read his
law on the subject from Sergeant Buzfuz, and his constitutional
and legislative history from Tittlebat Titmouse, to whom he has
just referred ; for certainly the history of legislation, as reflected
in the Journals of Congress, gives no support to his position.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we can, for once, approach the
discussion of a measure on its own merits, uninfluenced by any
mere party considerations. I wish we might, in the discussion
of this subject, be equally free from that international jealousy,
that hereditary hatred, so frequently and unreasonably mani-
fested against Great Britain. I have noticed on the faces of
members of the House a smile of satisfaction when any speaker
has denounced the proposal to copy any custom of, or borrow
any experience from, the government of England. No man on
this floor is more desirous than myself to see this republic
stand erect among the nations, and grant to and exact from
Great Britain equal justice. I fully appreciate how little friend-
ship she has shown us in our great national struggle, yet I will
not allow my mind to be so prejudiced as not to see the great-
ness, the glory, and the excellence of the British constitution.
I believe that, next to our own, the constitution of Great Britain
stands highest for its wisdom and its security to freedom of all
the constitutions of the civilized world ; and in some respects
it is equal or superior to our own. It does not become us,
therefore, to set it aside as unworthy of our study, of our care-
ful observation. Gentlemen should not forget that, in the days
of George III., England, as well as America, emancipated herself
from the tyranny of kingly prerogative; and it may be well
questioned whether the two streams that sprung from that great
struggle have not been flowing in parallel channels of equal
depth and greatness, one on this continent and the other in the
British islands. It may well be doubted whether there is not as
much popular freedom in the kingdom of Great Britain as in

* Mr. Cox.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 63

this republic, and more Parliamentary security. A gentleman
who has lately crossed the sea, a man of great ability and a
philosophic observer, has said to-day that the British ministry
is nothing more or less than " a committee of the House of
Commons." I believe that he describes it correctly. I believe
that no nation has a ministry so susceptible to the breath of
popular opinion, so readily influenced and so completely con-
trolled by popular power, as is the ministry of Great Britain by
the House of Commons. Let one decisive vote be given against
the plans of that ministry, and it is at once dissolved. It exists
by the will of the House of Commons. How does this come
about? From the fact that, at the very time that we emanci-
pated ourselves from the kingly prerogatives of George III.,
Parliamentary reforms in Great Britain emancipated that nation
and established Parliamentary liberty in England. It does not,
therefore, become gentlemen to appeal to our ancient preju-
dices, so that we may not learn anything from that great and
wise system of government adopted by our neighbors across
the sea.

In the consideration of this question I shall touch upon three
leading points: first, the precedents from our own history;
second, the constitutionality of the proposed measure, as ex-
hibited in the early discussions and laws; and third, the policy
of the measure.

The precedents cited by the gentleman from Ohio,^ the chair-
man of the select committee, in his very able report, estab-
lish beyond all question that, in the early days of the republic
under the Constitution, the heads of Departments did come
upon the floor of Congress and make communications. No
man, I believe, has denied that; I think no gentleman can suc-
cessfully deny it. My friend from Vermont,^ if I understand
him, denies that they did more than to meet the Senate in execu-
tive session. I am glad to see that the gentleman assents to my
statement of his position. I will now cite two examples where
the head of a Department came on the floor of the House and
made statements. If the gentleman will turn to the first volume
of the Annals of Congress, he will find the following entry
under date of August 7, 1789: "The following message was
received from the President of the United States by General
Knox, the Secretary of War, who delivered therewith sundry

1 Mr. Pendleton. 2 Mr. Morrill.

64 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

statements." ^ Some gentlemen may say those statements were
in writing. I ask them to listen a little further : " who deliv-
ered therewith sundry statements and papers relating to the
same." So the Secretary of War came to the House of Repre-
sentatives and made statements.

Mr. Morrill. I will say to the gentleman from Ohio, that I take
that to mean nothing more than what the private secretary of the Presi-
dent now does every day. At that time the President of the United
States had no private secretary, but he used the members of the Cabinet
for that purpose, and for that purpose here only.

I should like to ask my friend from Vermont whether the
private secretary of the President makes any statements except
the mere announcement of the message which he delivers?

Mr. Morrill. I take it that that was all that was contemplated
then. We daily have communications from the President, containing
more than one document, statement, or paper.

My friend from Vermont has assisted me. He now makes
the point that the expression " statements," here referred to, is
merely the announcement of a message. I call his attention to
the second case which I will cite from the same volume. On
the loth of August, 1789, the President sent in a message by
the hands of General Knox, " who delivered the same, together
with a statement of the troops in the service of the United
States."^ He made to the House of Representatives statements
about troops in the service, so that the statements referred to
are not merely statements of the fact that he delivered a mes-
sage from the President.

Mr. Morrili- I do not like to interrupt the gentleman from Ohio,
but I must insist that his second instance does not prove the fact which
he assumes. He will find, if he will proceed further on in the same
volume, that when the question came up distinctly upon allowing the
Secretary of the Treasury to come in here for once, and once only, it
was then declared that it would be setting a new precedent, one which
they could not tolerate, and which they did not tolerate, but voted down
after discussion.

The gentleman has helped to pioneer my way handsomely
thus far. I shall consider the very example to which he refers,
and which I have examined with some care, under my second
point, — the discussions in the Congress of the United States

1 Page 709. » Page 716.

CABINET OFFICERS. IN CONGRESS. 65

touching the constitutionality of the proposed law. There were
discussions at five different periods in* the history of Congress,
and only five, so far as I have found, touching this general
subject.

The first occurred in the First Congress, when it was pro-
posed to establish executive departments. On the 19th of May,
1789, Mr. Boudinot, of New Jersey, moved that the House pro-
ceed, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, to estab-
lish executive departments of the government, the chief officers
thereof to be removable at the will of the President. Under
that resolution arose a full discussion of the nature of the offices
to be created, by whom the officers were to be appointed, and
by whom removed. The discussion covers forty or fifty pages
of the volume before me, and embraces some of the very ablest
expositions of the Constitution to be found in the early annals
of Congress. After this long discussion the following results
were arrived at, which will answer some of the points just made
by my colleague from Ohio.^ First, it was decided that the
departments were to be established by Congress, and the duties
and general scope of powers vested therein were to be estab-
lished by law ; but the incumbents of these offices were to be
appointed by the President, and removed at his pleasure. It
was clearly determined, in the second place, that these officers
could be removed in two ways : first, by the President ; second,
by impeachment in the usual modes prescribed in the Consti-
tution. It was thus settled, in this great discussion, not, as is
said by my colleague who has just taken his seat, that Cabinet
ministers are the creatures of the President and responsible to
him alone, but that their very Departments and their whole
organization depend in every case upon the law of Congress,
and they are themselves subject to impeachment for neglect of
their duties, or violation of their obligations, in those offices.

The second discussion occurred in the same year when the
Treasury Department was established, and in that instance the
discussion became more precise and critical, bearing more
nearly upon the particular question now before us. A clause
was introduced into the law establishing the Treasury Depart-
ment, providing that the Secretary of the Treasury should be
directed to prepare plans for the redemption of the public debt,
and for all the different measures relating to his Department;

1 Mr. Cox.
VOL. I 5

66 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

and " that he shall make report, and give information to either
branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing, as may be
required, respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate
or House of Representatives, or which shall appertain to his
office." The debate took a very wide range. It was objected
by several members that the provision was unconstitutional, on
the ground that the House was the only power authorized to
originate money bills, and that such an enactment would put
that power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. A
very long discussion ensued on what was meant by ** originating
a bill." Some contended that to draft a bill was to originate
it; others, that no proposed measure was a "bill" until the
House had passed it ; while others again said that it was a bill
whenever the House authorized it to be introduced. Finally it
was determined that there wai& nothing incompatible with the
Constitution in allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to report
plans and prepare drafts of bills. It was thus settled, and has
been the policy of the government till the present day, that the
Secretary of the Treasury may properly draft bills and prepare
plans and present them to Congress. And it is still a part of
pur law, — I have the provision before me, — ** that the Secre-
tary of the Treasury shall make report, and give information
to either branch of the Legislature, in person or in writing,
as may be required." Let it be understood that in the First
Congress of the United States a law was passed, — approved,
Sept. 2, 1789, by George Washington, acted upon before in
the House and in the Senate by the men who framed the
' Constitution, — which law provided that it should be the duty
of the Secretary of the Treasury to report his plans in writing
or in person, as either House might require.

Mr. Morrill. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. When the
Secretary had made out his plan in pursuance of the resolution by which
he was authorized to make it, did not the House, on the very first occa-
sion when it could take action on the subject, distinctly discuss the ques-
tion, and refuse him the privilege of reporting in person ?

I am coming, in a moment, to that precise point. The whole
question of the undue influence which it might give to the
executive Departments to allow Cabinet officers to make their
reports was fully examined ; and after the fullest and freest dis-
cussion, which, even in a condensed form, covers some twenty

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 67

pages of the book before me, the measure was passed without
even a division, and became the law of the land.

I now come to the point to which the gentleman from Ver-
mont has referred, — the third of the five discussions. On the
9th of January, 1790, the House received a communication
from the Secretary of the Treasury stating that, in obedience
to their resolution of the 21st of September previous, he had
prepared a draft of a plan for funding the public debt, and was
ready, at their pleasure, to report, — it being settled in the law,
as I have already said, that he should report in person or in
writing, as he might be directed. The question was discussed,
as the gentleman from Vermont noticed in his examination of
the case yesterday. Mr. Gerry moved that the report should
be made in writing. The question, whether it should be made
in writing or orally was discussed, and the chief argument used
in the case was, that it would be impossible for members of
Congress to understand it unless it was reduced to writing, so
that they could have it before them. It was also said that the
scope and bearing of the whole report would be so extensive
that the human mind could not comprehend the whole of it,
unless they could have it before them in a permanent shape.
It was conceded by several who spoke, that the House could
have the report made in writing, or orally, or in writing with
accompanying oral explanations. The constitutional doubt was
not suggested in that discussion. It was decided, without a
division, not that the Secretary should not be permitted to come
into the House, but that his report should be in writing. The
law still stood, as it now stands, that he shall report in person
or in writing, as either House may direct.

The fourth discussion related to the defeat of General St.
Clair. I will remind the House of the history of that case. In
1791, St. Clair was ordered to lead an expedition against the
Indians in the Northwestern Territory ; his army was disgrace-
fully defeated ; the case was referred to General Washington,
who declined to order a court of inquiry; and the subject was
taken up in the House of Representatives, and on the 27th of
March, 1792, a committee was ordered to inquire into the causes
of the failure of the expedition. On the 8th of May following,
the committee made a report which reflected severely upon the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War. On the
13th of November, 1792, a resolution was introduced into the

68 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

House to notify the two Secretaries that on the following
Wednesday the House would take the report into consideration,
and that they might attend. After a considerable discussion,
the resolution was negatived, and it was resolved to empower
a special committee of the House to send for persons and
papers in the case. On the following day the Secretary of
War, General Knox, addressed a letter to the Speaker of the
House, asking an opportunity to vindicate himself before the
House. It was said by the gentleman from Vermont, yesterday,
that General Knox was not permitted to come in. A discussion
of the subject followed the presentation of his request. The
House had not been satisfied with the report, and recommitted
it to the committee for further examination. After the recom-
mitment of the report, the Secretaries were brought before the
committee and examined, so that their testimony reached the
House in that mode. The question was never put to the House
whether they would or would not receive the Secretaries in the
House, but whether they should adopt the report, or recommit
it and order the committee to take further testimony. They
did the latter. The proposition to admit them to the House
was not directly acted upon at all.

Before leaving this branch of the subject I must refer to the
opinion of Mr. Madison as expressed in the debate of Novem-
ber 13, 1792, on the question of admitting the Secretaries to the
House to take part in the investigation of St. Clair. This was
the only quotation, I believe, which the gentleman from Ver-
mont found to apply directly to the point at issue. It is true
that Mr. Madison did say he objected to the House resolution
on constitutional grounds.^ But he did not state what those
constitutional grounds were. It is a little remarkable that he
who had in 1789 spoken and voted for the Treasury Act au-
thorizing the Secretary to report in person or in writing, as
either House might direct, should declare only three years later
that it was unconstitutional to let the Secretary come before the
House to give information or testimony. Perhaps, sir, a little
light from history will help to explain Mr. Madison's singular
position. My friend from Vermont will remember that within
those three years Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton had become
seriously alienated from each other, and the gifted authors of
the Federalist were friends no longer. The great party strife

^ See Annals, Second Congress, p. 680.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. 69

had begun, and they had taken opposite sides, Mr. Jefferson
leading one party, Mr. Madison following; and, Mr. Hamilton
leading the other, his friends, the Federalists, following him. It
is not, therefore, very surprising that Mr. Madison should have
been influenced, like others, by personal feeling, or at least by
his political differences with the Secretary of the Treasury. It
is well known that his political opinions were greatly changed
by the influence of Mr. Jefferson.

The fifth and last discussion to which I shall refer occurred
on the 19th of November,* 1792, on a resolution of the House
directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report a plan for the
reduction of the public debt. The question of the constitu-
tionality of his reporting a plan at all, again arose. The whole
ground was again gone over. Notwithstanding Madison's rec-
ord in 1789, he opposed the resolution; but it was passed
against him by the decisive vote of thirty-one to twenty-five.
So that even down to that day, after parties had taken their
groundi-'after Madison and Hamilton had become antagonistic,
after all the fierceness of personal feeling was awakened, still
the House determined that the law should stand as it was
enacted by the First Congress.

As the result of all these discussions, the custom obtained to
receive reports and information from the heads of Departments
in writing rather than in person. That custom has now almost
the force of law. But while the Treasury Act of 1789 remains
on our statute-book, we have a clear right to change the cus-
tom. I claim that, by a simple resolution of the House of Rep-
resentatives alone, we can now call the Secretary of the Treasury
here to explain in person any plan or measure of his, and he is
bound to come. The Senate can do the same for itself. The
very law which establishes his office and builds up his Depart-
ment makes it obligatory upon him to come when thus ordered.
This is true only of the Secretary of the Treasury.

I hold it, then, fairly established, that the measure before us
is clearly within the scope of our constitutional powers ; that it
is only a question how a thing shall be done, the thing to be
done being already provided by law. The heads of Depart-
ments do now make known their plans and views ; they do now
communicate to the House all that this resolution contemplates
that they shall communicate. It is only a question of mode.
They now communicate with the pen. This resolution proposes

70 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

to add the tongue to the pen, the voice to the document, the
explanation to the text, and nothing more. It is simply a
proposition to add to our facilities by having the Secretaries
here to explain orally what they have already transmitted in
documentary form.

And this brings me to the third and last point that I propose
to examine in this discussion, — the policy of the proposed
change, on which, I admit, there is much room for difference of
opinion. The committee have given a very exhaustive state-
ment of its advantages in their report, and I will only enlarge
upon a few points in their statement.

And, first of all, the proposed change will increase our facili-
ties for full and accurate information as the basis of legislative
action. There are some gentlemen here who doubt whether we
have a right to demand information from the heads of Depart-
ments. Do we get that information as readily, as quickly, and as
fully as we need it? Let me read an extract illustrative of the
present plan. The President of the United States, in his last
annual message to Congress, says : " The Report of the Sec-
retary of War, and accompanying documents, will detail the
campaigns of the armies in the field since the date of the last
annual message, and also the operations of the several adminis-
trative bureaus of the War Department during the last year.
It will also specify the measures deemed essential for the national
defence, and to keep up and supply the requisite military force."
Has that report been received ? This message was delivered to
us at the commencement of the present session; we are now
within five weeks of its close ; but to this hour we have had no
report from the Secretary of War, no official advice from him in
reference to the " measures deemed essential for the national
defence, and to keep up and supply the requisite military force."
We have been working in the dark, and it is only as we have
reconnoitred the War Department, and forced ourselves in
sidewise and edgewise, that we have been able to learn what is
considered essential for the national defence. Had this resolu-
tion been in force, we should long ago have had his report in
our hands, or his good and sufficient reason for withhold-
ing it.

I call the attention of the House to the fact, that our table
is groaning under the weight of resolutions asking information
from the several Departments that have not been answered.

CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS. Ji

Who does not remember that, at a very early day of the session,
a resolution, introduced by a member from Indiana,^ was unan-
imously adopted, asking why the order of the House had been
neglected, and we had not been furnished with the information ?
But this also has fallen a brutum fulmen ; we have received no
answer. Could these things be, if the members of the legisla-
tive and executive departments were sitting in council together?
Should we not long ago have had the information, or known
the reason why we did not have it?

On the subject of information, I have a word more to say.
We want information more in detail than we can get by the
present mode. For example, it would have aided many of us,
a few days since, when the Loan Bill was under consideration,
if the Secretary of the Treasury had been here to tell us pre-
cisely what he intended in regard to an increase of the volume
of the currency under the provisions of the bill. We want to
understand each other thoroughly; and when this is done, it
will remove a large share of the burdens of legislation.

One other point on the policy of the measure. I want this
joint resolution passed to readjust the relations between the
executive and legislative departments, and to readjust them so
that there shall be greater responsibility to the legislative de-
partment than there now is, and that that responsibility shall
be made to rest with greater weight upon the shoulders of the
executive authority. I am surprised that both the gentleman
from Vermont and the gentleman from Ohio declare that this
measure would aggrandize the executive authority. I must say
that, to me, it is one objection to this plan, that it may have
exactly the opposite effect. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the
fame of Jefferson is waning, and the fame of Hamilton wax-
ing, in the estimation of the American people, and that we
are gravitating towards a stronger government I am glad we
are, and I hope this measure will cause the heads of Depart-
ments to become so thoroughly acquainted with the details of
their office as to compensate for the restrictions imposed upon
them. Who does not know that the enactment of this law will
tend to bring our ablest men into the Cabinet of the republic?
Who does not know that, if a man is to be responsible for his
executive acts, and also be able to tell why he proposes new
measures, and to comprehend intelligently the whole scope of

1 Mr. Holman.

y2 CABINET OFFICERS IN CONGRESS.

his duties, weak men will shrink from taking such places?
Who does not know that it will call out the best talent of the
land, both executive and parliamentary? What is the fact now?
I venture to assert, that the mass of our executive information
comes from the heads of bureaus, or perhaps from the chief
clerks of bureaus, or other subordinates unknown to the legisla-
tive body. I would have it, that, when these men bring infor-
mation before us, they shall themselves be possessed of the last
items of that information, so that they can explain them as
fully as the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means
ever explains his measures when he offers them to the House.

One more word, Mr. Speaker. Instead of seeing the picture
which the gentleman from Ohio^ has painted to attract our
minds from the subject-matter itself to the mere gaudiness of
his farcical display, instead of seeing that unworthy and un-
manly exhibition in this House which he has described, I would
see in its place the executive heads of the government giving
information to, and consulting with, the representatives of the
people in an open and undisguised way. Sir, the danger to
American liberty is not from open contact with departments,
but from that unseen, intangible influence which characterizes
courts, crowns, and cabinets. Who does not know, and who
does not feel, how completely the reason of a member may be
stultified by the written dictum of some head of Department,
that he thinks a measure good or bad, wise or unwise? I want
that head of Department to tell me why ; I want him to appeal
to my reason, and not lecture me ex catkedrUy and desire me to
follow his lead just because he leads. I do not believe in any
prescriptive right to determine what legislation shall be. No,
sir; it is the silent, secret influence that saps and undermines
the fabric of republics, and not the open appeal, the collision
between intellects, the array of facts.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this measure will be fairly con-
sidered. If it do not pass now, the day will come, I believe,
when it will pass. When that day comes, I expect to see a
higher type of American statesmanship, not only in the Cabinet,
but also in the legislative halls.

1 Mr. Cox.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

January 13, 1865.

February 10, 1864, Mr. Lyman Trambull, of Illinois, reported to the
Senate, from the Committee on the Judiciary, this Joint Resolution : —

" Be it resolved, etc., etc.. That the following article be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legis-
latures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said
Constitution, namely : —

"Article XIII. Sect. i. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.

"Sect. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro-
priate legislation."

April 8 following, this resolution passed the Senate. June 15, it was
rejected in the House. The same day, a motion to reconsider the vote
was entered. At the next session, January 6, 1865, ^^^ motion to recon-
sider was taken up and discussed at length. On this motion, January 13,
Mr. Garfield made the speech that follows. The 31st of the same month
the question to reconsider carried, and the same day the resolution was
adopted. December 18, 1865, the Secretary of State, Mr. Seward, issued
his certificate to the effect that, the requisite number of States having
ratified the proposed amendment, it had become valid to all mtents and
purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

MR. SPEAKER, — We shall never know why slavery dies so
hard in this republic and in this hall till we know why sin
has such longevity and Satan is immortal. With marvellous
tenacity of existence, it has outlived the expectations of its

74 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER Y.

friends and the hopes of its enemies. It has been declared here
and elsewhere to be in all the several stages of mortality, —
wounded, dying, dead. The question was raised by my col-
league^ yesterday whether it was indeed dead, or only in a
troubled sleep. I know of no better illustration of its condition
than is found in Sallust's admirable history of the great conspir-
ator Catiline, who, when his final battle was fought and lost, his
army broken and scattered, was found, far in advance of his own
troops, lying among the dead enemies of Rome, yet breathing a
little, but exhibiting in his countenance all that ferocity of spirit
which had characterized his life. So, sir, this body of slavery
lies before us among the dead enemies of the republic, mortally
wounded, impotent in its fiendish wickedness, but with its old
ferocity of look, bearing the unmistakable marks of its infernal
origin.

Who does not remember that thirty years ago — a short period
in the life of a nafion — but little could be said with impunity in
these halls on the subject of slavery? How well do gentlemen
here remember the history of that distinguished predecessor of
mine, Joshua R. Giddings, lately gone to his rest, who, with his
forlorn hope of faithful men, took his life in his hand, and in the
name of justice protested against the great crime, and who stood
bravely in his place until his white locks, like the plume of
Henry of Navarre, marked where the battle for freedom raged
fiercest ! We can hardly realize that this is the same people,
and these the same halls, where now scarcely a man can be
found who will venture to do more than falter out an apology
for slavery, protesting in the same breath that he has no love for
the dying tyrant None, I believe, but that man of more than
supernal boldness from the city of New York,^ has ventured, this
session, to raise his voice in favor of slavery for its own sake.
He still sees in its features the reflection of beauty and divinity,
and only he. " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning ! How art thou cut down to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations ! " Many mighty men have
been slain by thee ; many proud ones have humbled themselves
at thy feet. All along the coast of our political sea these vic-
tims of slavery lie like stranded wrecks, broken on the headlands
of freedom. How lately did its advocates, with impious bold-
ness, maintain it as God's own, to be venerated and cherished as

1 Mr. Cox. a Mr. Wood.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 75

divine ! It was another and higher form of civilization. It was
the holy evangel of America dispensing its mercies to a benighted
race, and destined to bear countless blessings to the wilder-
ness of the West. In its mad arrogance, it lifted its hand to
strike down the fabric of the Union, and since that fatal day it
has been a " fugitive and a vagabond in the earth." Like the
spirit that Jesus cast out, it has, since then, been " seeking rest
and finding none." It has sought in all the corners of the
republic to find some hiding-place in which to shelter itself from
the death it so richly deserves. It sought an asylum in the
untrodden territories of the West, but with a whip of scorpions
indignant freemen drove it thence. I do not believe that a loyal
man can now be found who would consent that it should again
enter them. It has no hope of harbor there. It found no pro-
tection or favor in the hearts or consciences of the freemen of
the republic, and has fled for its last hope of safety behind the
shield of the Constitution. We propose to 'follow it there, and
drive it thence, as Satan was exiled from heaven. But now, in
the hour of its mortal agony, in this hall, it has found a
defender.

My gallant colleague^ (for I recognize him as a gallant and
able man) plants himself at the door of his darling, and bids de-
fiance to all assailants. He has followed slavery in its flight,
until at last it has reached the great temple where liberty is en-
shrined, the Constitution of the United States ; and there, in that
last retreat, declares that no hand shall strike it. He reminds
me of that celebrated passage in the great Latin poet in which
the serpents of the sea, when they had destroyed Laocoon and
his sons, fled to the heights of the Trojan citadel, and coiled
their slimy lengths around the feet of the tutelar goddess, and
were covered by the orb of her shield. So, under the guidance
of my colleague, slavery, gorged with the blood of ten thousand
freemen, has climbed to the high citadel of American nationality,
and coiled itself securely, as he believes, around the feet of the
statue of Justice and under the shield of the Constitution of the
United States. We desire to follow it even there, and kill it
beside the very altar of liberty. Its blood can never make
atonement for the least of its crimes.

But the gentleman has gone further. He is not content that
the snaky sorceress shall be merely wider the protection of the

1 Mr. Pendleton.

'je AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER Y.

Constitution. In his view, by a strange metamorphosis, slavery
becomes an invisible essence, and takes up its abode in the very
grain and fibre of the Constitution ; and when we would strike
it, he says : " I cannot point out any express clause that prohibits
you from destroying slavery; but I find a prohibition in the
intent and meaning of the Constitution, t go under the surface,
out of sight, into the very genius of it, and in that invisible
domain slavery is enshrined, and there is no power in the republic
to drive it thence." That I may do no injustice to my colleague,
I will read from his speech of day before yesterday the passage
to which I refer : —

"My colleague from the Toledo district,^ in the speech which he
made the other day, told us, with reference to this point : * If I read the
Constitution aright, and understand the force of language, the section
which I have just quoted is to-day free from all limitations and condi-
tions save two, one of which provides that the suffrage of the several
States in tlie Senate shall be equal, and that no State shall lose this
equality by any amendment of the Constitution without its consent;
the other relates to taxation. These are the only conditions and limita-
tions.* I deny it. I assert that there is another limitation stronger even
than the letter of the Constitution ; and that is to be found in its intent,
and its spirit, and its foundation idea. I put the question which has
been put before in this debate : Can three fourths of the States constitu-
tionally change this government, and make it an autocracy ? It is not

prohibited by the letter of the Constitution It does not come

within the two classes of limitations and conditions asserted by my
colleague. Why is it that this change cannot be made ? I will tell you
why. It is because republicanism lies at the very foundation of our
system of government, and to overthrow that idea is not to amend, but
to subvert the Constitution of the United States ; and I say that if three
fourths of the States should undertake to pass an amendment of that
kind, and Rhode Island alone dissented, she would have the right to
resist by force. It would be her duty to resist by force ; and her cause
would be sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in the eyes of a
just God.'' 2

Jefferson Davis and his fellow-conspirators will ask for no bet-
ter defence of their rebellion. South Carolina will ask no more
than to be placed in the same category with Rhode Island — in
the gentleman's argument. South Carolina being her own judge,
her cause is " sacred in the eyes of just men, and sanctified in
the eyes of a just God." He goes behind the letter of the Con-

1 Mr. Ashley. ^ Congressional Globe, Jan. ii, 1865, pp. 221, 222.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER K ^^

stitution, and finds a refuge for slavery in its intent ; and with
that intent he declares that we have no right to deal in the way
of amendment.

But he has gone even deeper than the spirit and intent of the
Constitution. He has announced a discovery to which I am
sure no other statesman will lay claim. He has found a domain
where slavery can no more be reached by human law than the
hfe of Satan by the sword of Michael. He has marked the
hither boundary of this newly discovered continent, in his
response to the question of the gentleman from lowa.^ I will
read it : "I will not be drawn now into a discussion with the
gentleman as to the origin of slavery, nor to the law which lies
behind the Constitution of the United States, and behind the
governments of the States, by which these people are held in
slavery." Not finding anything in the words and phrases of
the Constitution that forbids an amendment abolishing slavery,
he goes behind all human enactments, and far away, among the
eternal equities, he finds a primal law which overshadows states,
nations, and constitutions, as space envelops the universe, and by
its solemn sanctions one human being can hold another in per-
petual slavery. Surely human ingenuity has never gone farther
to protect a malefactor or defend a crime. ^ I shall make no
argument with my colleague on this point; for in that high court
to which he appeals eternal justice dwells with freedom, and
slavery has never entered.

I now turn to the main point of his argument. He has given
us the key to his theory of the Constitution in the three words
which the gentleman from Rhode Island ^ commented upon last
evening. Upon those words rests the strength or weakness of
his position. He describes the Constitution of the United States
as a ** compact of confederation." If I understand the gentleman,
he holds that each State is sovereign ; that in their sovereign
capacity, as the source and fountain of power, the States, each
for itself, ratified the Constitution which the Convention had
framed. What powers they did not grant they reserved. They
did not grant to the Federal government the right to control
the subject of slavery. That right still resides in the States
severally. Hence no amendment of the Constitution by three
fourths of the States can legally affect slavery in the remaining
fourth. Hence no amendment by the modes pointed out in

1 Mr. Wilson. i Mr. Jenckcs.

78 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

the Constitution can reach it. This, I believe, is a succinct and
just statement of his argument The whole question turns upon
the sovereignty of the States. Are they sovereign and inde-
pendent now ? Were they ever so ? I shall endeavor to answer.
I appeal to the facts of history, and, to bring them clearly before
us, I affirm : —

I. That prior to the 4th of July, 1776, the Colonies were
neither free nor independent. Their sovereignty was lodged
in the Crown of Great Britain. I believe no man will deny
this. It was admitted in the first Declaration of Rights, put
forth by the Revolutionary Congress that, in 1 774, assembled
in Philadelphia to pray for a redress of grievances. That
body expressly admitted that the sovereignty of the Colonies
was lodged in the Crown of Great Britain. It has been taught
by Jay and Story, and has been so decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States.^

II. On the 4th of July, 1776, the sovereignty was withdrawn
from the British Crown, by the whole people of the Colonies,
and lodged in the Revolutionary Congress. No Colony de-
clared itself free and independent. Neither Virginia, New York,
nor Massachusetts declared itself free and independent of the
Crown of Great Britain. The declaration was made not even
by all the Colonies as colonies, but in the name and by the au-
thority of "the good people of these Colonies," as one people.
In the following memorable declaration the sovereignty was
transferred from the Crown of Great Britain to \ii^ people of the
Colonies : —

" We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,
in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free
and independent States ; that they are absolved fix)m all allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and
the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ; and that
as free and independent States they have fuU power to levy war, con-
clude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other
acts and things which independent states may of right do."

In vindication of this view, I read from Justice Story's Com-
mentaries on the Constitution : —

^ See Chisholm v. State of Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 79

" The Colonies did not severally act for themselves and proclaim their
own independence. It is true that some of the states had previously
formed incipient governments for themselves, but it was done in com-
pliance with the recommendations of Congress The declaration

of independence of all the Colonies was the united act of all. It was
* a declaration by the representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled * ; * by the delegates appointed by the good people
of the Colonies/ as in a prior declaration of rights they were called. It
was not an act done by the State governments then organized ; nor by
persons chosen by them. It was emphatically the act of the whole
people of the United Colonies, by the instrumentality of their representa-
tives, chosen for that among other purposes. It was not an act compe-
tent to the State governments, or any of them, as organized under their
charters, to adopt Those charters neither contemplated the case nor
provided for it. It was an act of original inherent sovereignty by the
people themselves, resulting from their right to change the fonp of gov-
ernment, and to institute a new one whenever necessary for their safety
and happiness. So the Declaration of Independence treats it. No
State had presumed of itself to form a new government, or to provide
for the exigencies of the times, without consulting Congress on the
subject, and when any acted, it was in pursuance of the recommenda-
tion of Congress. It was, therefore, the achievement of the whole for
the benefit of the whole.

" The people of the United Colonies made the United Colonies free
and independent States, and absolved them from all allegiance to the
British Crown. The Declaration of Independence has accordingly
always been treated as an act of paramount and sovereign authority,
complete and perfect per se, and ipso facto working an entire dissolution
of all political connection with and allegiance to Great Britain. And this,
not merely as a practical fact, but in. a legal and constitutional view of
the matter by courts of justice." ^

When the people of the Colonies became free, having with-
drawn sovereignty from the Crown of Great Britain, where did
they lodge it? Not in the States; but, so far as they delegated
it at all, they lodged it in the Revolutionary Congress then sitting
in Philadelphia. My colleague dissents. I ask his attention
again to the language of this distinguished commentator : —

" In the next place, we have seen that the power to do this act was
not derived from the State governments, nor was it done generally with
their co-operation. The question then naturally presents itself, if it is
to be considered as a national act, in what manner did the Colonies

1 Book II. Sec. 211.

8o AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

become a nation, and in what manner did Congress become possessed
of this national power? The true answer must be, that as soon as
Congress assumed powers and passed measures which were in their
nature national, to that extent the people from whose acquiescence and
consent they took effect must be considered as agreeing to form a
nation." *

Mr. Pendleton. I desire to ask my colleague from what power the
delegates who sat in that Congress derived their authority to make the
Declaration ; whether they did not derive it from the Colonies, or the
States, if the gentleman prefers that word, and whether each delegate
did not speak in the Congress for the State government which author-
ized him to speak there ?

I say, in answer to the point the gentleman makes, as I have
already said, and in the language of this distinguished com-
mentator, that the moment the Revolutionary Congress assumed
national prerogatives, and the people by their silence consented,
that moment the people of the Colonies were constituted a na-
tion, and that Revolutionary Congress became the authorized
government of the nation. But the Declaration was made
"by the authority of the good people," and hence it was their
declaration.

Mr. Pendleton. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him whether
from that moment they became the representatives of the nation, or
whether they still retained their position as representatives of the
States ?

They were both. They were still representatives of the
States; but the new function of national representatives was
added. They then took upon them that which now belongs to
the gentleman, the twofold quality of State citizenship and
national citizenship. The gentleman is twice a citizen, subject
to two jurisdictions ; and so were they.

I shall still further fortify my position by reading again from
Justice Story : —

" From the moment of the Declaration of Independence, if not for
most purposes at an antecedent period, the United Colonies must be
considered as being a nation de facto, having a general government
over it, created and acting by the general consent of the people of all
the Colonies. The powers of that government were not, and indeed
could not, be well defined. But still its exclusive sovereignty in many

^ Book II. Sec. 213.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 8i

cases was firmly established, and its controlling power over the States
was in most, if not in all national measures, universally admitted." ^

III. On the 1st of March, 1781, the sovereignty of the na-
tion was lodged, by the people, in the Articles of Confedera-
tion. The government thus formed, was a confederacy. Its
Constitution might properly be styled a ** Compact of Confed-
eration," though by its terms it established a " perpetual union/*
and left small ground for the doctrine of secession.

IV. On the 21st of June, 1788,^ our national sovereignty
was lodged, by the people, in the Constitution of the United
States, where it still resides, and for its preservation our armies
are to-day in the field. In all these stages of development,
from colonial dependence to full-orbed nationality, the people,
not the States, have been omnipotent. They have abolished,
established, altered, and amended, as suited their sovereign
pleasure. For the greater security of liberty, they chose to
distribute the functions of government. They left to each State
the regulation of its local and municipal affairs, and endowed
the Federal republic with the high functions of national sover-
eignty. They made the Constitution. That great charter tells
its own story best in the preamble: —

" We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."

Not '*We, the sovereign States," do enter into a league or form
a " compact of confederation.*'

If the gentleman looks, then, for a kind of political '* apos-
tolic succession '* of American sovereignty, he will find that
neither Colonies nor States were in the royal line ; but this is
the genealogy : first, the Crown and Parliament of Great Brit-
ain ; second, the Revolutionary Congress ; third, the Articles of
Confederation ; fourth, and now, the Constitution of the United
States ; and all this by the authority of the people. Now, if no
one of the Colonics was sovereign and independent, when and
how did any of the States become so? The gentleman must
show us by what act it was done, and where the deed was re-

^ Story on the Constitution, Book II. Sec. 215.

' The date of the ratification of the Constitution by the ninth State, — New
Hampshire.
VOL L 6

82 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.

corded. I think I have shown that his position has no foundation
in history, and the argument based upon it falls to the ground.

In framing and establishing the Constitution, what restrictions
were laid upon the people? Absolutely no human power be-
yond themselves. No barriers confined them but the laws of
nature, the laws of God, their love of justice, and their aspira-
tions for liberty. Over that limitless expanse they ranged at
will, and out of such materials as their wisdom selected they
built the stately fabric of our government. That Constitution,
with its Amendments, is the latest and the greatest utterance
of American sovereignty. The hour is now at hand when that
majestic sovereign, for the benignant purpose of securing still
further the ** blessings of liberty," is about to put forth another
oracle, — is about to declare that universal freedom shall be the
supreme law of the land. Show me the power that is author-
ized to forbid it.

The lapse of eighty years has not abated one jot or tittle from
the original sovereignty of the American people. They made
the Constitution what it is. They could have made it otherwise
then ; they can make it otherwise now.

But my colleague ^ has planted himself on the intent of the
Constitution. On that point I ask him by what means the
will of this nation reaches the citizen, with its obligations?
Only as that will is revealed in the logical and grammatical
meaning of the words and phrases of the written Consti-
tution. Beyond this, there is, there can be, no legal force or
potency. If the amending power granted in the Constitution
be in any way abridged or restricted, such restriction must be
found in the just meaning of the instrument itself Any other
doctrine would overthrow the whole fabric of jurisprudence.
What are the limitations of the amending power? Plainly and
only these : " That no amendment which may be made prior to
the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth
clauses in the ninth section of the first Article; and that no
State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage
in the Senate." ^ The first restriction, being bounded by the
year 1808, is of course functtis officio, and no longer operative;
the last is still binding. The gentleman does not claim that any
other sentence is restrictive ; but he would have us believe there
is something not written down, a tertium quid, a kind of exha-

* Mr. Pendleton. a Constitution, Art. V.

AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. 83

lation rising out of the depths of the Constitution, that has the
power of itself to stay the hand of the people of this great
republic in their attempt to put away an evil that is deleterious
to the nation's life. He would lead us in pursuit of these
intangible shadows, would place us in the dominion of vague,
invisible powers, that exhale, like odors, from the Constitution,
but are more potent than the Constitution itself. Such an ignis
fatuus I am not disposed to follow, especially when it leads to
a hopeful future for human slavery. •

I cannot agree with my colleague, and the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts,^ who unite in declaring that no
amendment to the Constitution can be made which would be in
conflict with its objects as declared in the preamble. What spe-
cial immunity was granted to that first paragraph? Could not
our forefathers have adopted a different preamble in the begin-
ning? Could they not have employed other words, and declared
other objects, as the basis of their Constitution? If they could
have made a different preamble, declaring other and different
objects, so can we now declare other objects in our amendments.
The preamble is itself amendable, just as is every clause of the
Constitution, excepting only the ones already referred to. But
this point is not necessary in the case we are now considering.
We need no change of the preamble to enable us to abolish
slavery. It is only by the final overthrow of slavery that the
objects of the preamble can be fully realized. By that means
alone can we "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The gentleman 2 puts another case which I wish to notice. He
says that nine of the thirteen original Colonies adopted the Con-
stitution, and by its very terms it was binding only on the nine.
So if three fourths of the States should pass this amendment it
would not bind the other fourth. In commenting upon this
clause, Judge Tucker, of Virginia, in his appendix to Blackstone,
says that if the four Colonies had not adopted the Constitution
they would have been a foreign people. The writers of the
Federalist hold a different doctrine, and fall back upon the origi-
nal right of the nation to preserve itself, and say that the nine
States would have had the right to compel the other four to
come in. But the question is unimportant, from the fact that
they did come in and adopt the Constitution. The contract

1 Mr. Boutwell. * Mr. Pendleton.

84 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLA VER K

once ratified, and obligations once taken, they became an inte-
gral part of an indivisible nation, as indivisible as a state. The
argument is irrelevant; for the mode of adopting the Constitu-
tion is one thing, the mode pointed out in the Constitution for
adopting amendments to it is quite, another. The two have no
necessary relation to each other. I therefore agree with my
colleague from the Columbus district,^ that, except in the two
cases of limitation, two thirds of Congress and three fourths of
the States can do anything in the way of amendment, being
bounded only by their sense of duty to God and the country.
The field is then fully open before us.

On the justice of the amendment itself no arguments are
necessary. The reasons crowd in on every side. To enumer-
ate them would be a work of superfluity. To me it is a matter
of great surprise that gentlemen on the other side should wish
to detey the death of slavery. I can only account for it on the
ground of long-continued familiarity and friendship. I should
be glad to hear them say of slavery, their beloved, as did the
jealous Moor, —

" Yet she must die, else she ni betray more men."

Has she not betrayed and slain men enough? Are they not
strewn over a thousand battle-fields? Is not this Moloch al-
ready gorged with the bloody feast? Its best friends know that
its final hour is fast approaching. The avenging gods are on
its track. Their feet are not now, as of old, shod with wool, nor
slow and stately stepping, but winged like Mercury's to bear the
swift message of vengeance. No human power can avert the
final catastrophe.

I did not intend, Mr. Speaker, ever again to address the
House on the subject of slavery. I had hoped we might, with-
out a struggle, at once and forever remove it from the theatre
of American politics, and turn our thoughts to those other and
larger fields now opening before us. But when I saw the bold
and determined efforts put forth in this House yesterday for its
preservation, I could not resist my inclination to strike one blow,
in the hope of hastening its doom.

» Mr. Cox.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

ORATION DELIVERED AT RAVENNA, OHIO.

July 4, 1865.

July 4, i860, Mr. Garfield delivered an oration at Ravenna, Ohio,
discussing such topics as generally drew the attention of cultivated men
on such occasions before the war. Again, July 4, 1865, ^^ delivered a
second oration at the same place. He began the second oration with
calling attention to the changes that had been wrought since the first
one was delivered. He traced the progress of the sentiment of liberty
from the opening of the war to the Emancipation Proclamation, and then
to the coming of peace. The results of the war, he said, were these : —

1. A clear discernment upon the part of the Northern people of the
wickedness of slavery.

2. A stronger nationality. Out of the ruins of slavery and treason had
grown up a stronger and grander nationality than we had ever known
before. An old American statesman said that the stability of the govern-
ment would depend upon its power directly to enforce its laws. The
power of our government had been amply demonstrated by the gen-
erous response to its calls for men and money for the war. We
understand now that we do not owe allegiance to Washington by way
of Columbus, but in an air line,

3. The government had been proved stronger than any of its depend-
encies. Cotton was declared King, but Cotton did not save the re-
bellion. The Republic was greater than any product, than any interest,
than any State or man.

4. The character of the people had grown. " We have more faith
in the American people than before the war. We have learned to know
them and respect them. The boys who went from us come back to us
solid men. They have been engaged in a righteous work. No man
can be inspired with a great and noble purpose without being better for
it The destiny of the nation is safer and surer than ever before.
We have learned how to appreciate its beneficence and its virtue, and

\

86 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

we shall never be likely to forget those who have come back to us
from its battle-fields."

Before this point was reached, Mr. Garfield had divided the national
drama into two acts, the military act and the civil or the restorative act.
Now he addressed himself to the second of these acts, or more narrowly
the suffrage question. This oration was not fully reported, but the
following portion, relating to suffrage, was prepared in manuscript by the
author, and was printed at the time from his notes.

FELLOW-CITIZENS, — We may now say that the past,
with all its wealth of glorious associations, is secure.
The air is filled with brightness; the horizon is aglow with
hope. The future is full of magnificent possibilities. But God
has committed to us a trust which we must not, we dare not
overlook. By the dispensation of his Providence, the chains
have been stricken from four millions of the inhabitants of this
Republic, and he has shown us the truth of that early utterance
of Abraham Lincoln's, — **This is a world of compensations;
and he who would be no slave must have no slave. Those who
deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under
a just God cannot long retain it."

In the great crisis of the war, God brought us face to face
with the mighty truth, that we must lose our own freedom or
grant it to the slave. In the extremity of our distress, we called
upon the black man to help us save the Republic ; and, amid
the very thunders of battle, we made a covenant with him,
sealed both with his blood and with ours, and witnessed by
Jehovah, that, when the nation was redeemed, he should be
free, and share with us its glories and its blessings. The Omnis-
cient Witness will appear in judgment against us if we do not
fulfil that covenant. Have we done it? Have we given freedom
to the black man? What is freedom? Is it mere negation?
Is it the bare privilege of not being chained, — of not being
bought and sold, branded and scourged? If this is all, then
freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion, and it may well
be questioned whether slavery were not better. But liberty is
no negation. It is a substantial, tangible reality. It is the
realization of those imperishable truths of the Declaration,
** that all men are created equal " ; that the sanction of all just

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 87

government is " the consent of the governed." Can these be
realized until each man has a right to be heard on all matters
relating to himself? The plain truth is, that each man knows
his own interest best It has been said, " If he is compelled to
pay, if he may be compelled to fight, if he be required implicitly
to obey, he should be legally entitled to be told what for ; to
have his consent asked, and his opinion counted at what it is
worth. There ought to be no pariahs in a full-grown and civil-
ized nation, no persons disqualified except through their own
default." I would not insult your intelligence by discussing so
plain a truth, had not the passion and prejudice of this genera-
tion called in question the very axioms of the Declaration.

But it will be asked, Is it safe to admit to the elective fran-
chise the great mass of ignorant and degraded blacks, so lately
slaves? Here indeed is the great practical question, to the
solution of which should be brought all the wisdom and en-
lightenment of our people. I am fully persuaded that some
degree of intelligence and culture should be required as a quali-
fication for the right of suffrage. I have no doubt that it would
be better if no man were allowed to vote who cannot read his
ballot or the Constitution of the United States, and write his
name or copy in a legible hand a sentence from the Declaration
of Independence. Make any such wise restriction of suffrage,
but let it apply to all alike. Let us not commit ourselves to
the absurd and senseless dogma that the color of the skin shall
be the basis of suffrage, the talisman of liberty. I admit that
it is perilous to confer the franchise upon the ignorant and de-
graded; but if an educational test cannot be established, let
suffrage be extended to all men of proper age, regardless of
color. It may well be questioned whether the negro does not
understand the nature of our institutions better than the equally
ignorant foreigner.' He was intelligent enough to understand
from the beginning of the war that the destiny of his race was
involved in it. He was intelligent enough to be true to that
Union which his educated and traitorous master was endeavor-
ing to destroy. He came to us in the hour of our sorest need,
and by his aid, under God, the Republic was saved. Shall we
now be guilty of the unutterable meanness, not only of thrust-
ing him beyond the pale of its blessings, but of committing his
destiny to the tender mercies of those pardoned rebels who
have been so reluctantly compelled to take their feet from his

88 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

neck and their hands from his throat? But some one says
it is dangerous at this time to make new experiments. I an-
swer, it is always safe to do justice. However, to grant suffrage
to the black man in this country is not innovation, but restora-
tion. It is a return to the ancient principles and practices of
the fathers. Let me refer you to a few facts in our history
which have been but little studied by' the people and politicians
of this generation.

1. During the war of the Revolution, and in 1788, the date of
the adoption of our national Constitution, there was but one
State among the thirteen whose constitution refused the right of
suffrage to the negro. That State was South Carolina. Some,
it is true, established a property qualification ; all made freedom
a prerequisite; but none save South Carolina made color a
condition of suffrage.

2. The Federal Constitution makes no such distinction, nor
did the Articles of Confederation. In the Congress of the Con-
federation, on the 25th of June, 1778, the fourth article was
under discussion. It provided that ** the free inhabitants of
each of these States — paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from
justice excepted — shall be entitled to all privileges and im-
munities of free citizens in the several States." The delegates
from South Carolina moved to insert between the words '* free
inhabitants" the word "white," thus denying the privileges and
immunities of citizenship to the colored man. According to
the rules of the convention, each State had but one vote.
Eleven States voted on the question. One was divided ; two
voted aye ; and eight voted no.^ It was thus early, and almost
unanimously, decided ^zX, freedom, not color, should be the test
of citizenship.

3. No Federal legislation prior to 1 8 12 placed any restriction
on the right of suffrage in consequence of the color of the citi-
zen. From 1789 to 1812 Congress passed ten separate laws
establishing new Territories. In all these, freedom, and not
color, was the basis of suffrage.

4. After nearly a quarter of a century of prosperity under the
Constitution, the spirit of slavery so far triumphed over the early
principles and practices of the government that, in 1812, South
Carolina and her followers in Congress succeeded in inserting
the word " white " in the suffrage clause of the act establishing

1 Elliot's Debates, Vol. I. p. 90.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 89

a territorial government for Missouri. One by one the Slave
States, and many of the free States, gave way before the crusade
of slavery against negro citizenship. In 181 7, Connecticut
caught the infection, and in her constitution she excluded the
negro from the ballot-box. In every other New England State
his ancient right of suffrage has remained and still remains un-
disturbed. Free negroes voted in Maryland till 1833 ; in North
Carolina, till 1835 ; in Pennsylvania, till 1838. It was the boast
of Cave Johnson of Tennessee that he owed his election to Con-
gress in 1828 to the free negroes who worked in his mills. They
were denied the suffrage in 1834, under the new constitution of
Tennessee, by a vote of thirty-three to twenty-three. As new
States were formed, their constitutions for the most part ex-
cluded the negro from citizenship. Then followed the shameful
catalogue of black laws — expatriation and ostracism in every
form — which have so deeply disgraced the record of legisla-
tion in many of the States.

I afRrm, therefore, that our present position is one of apos-
tasy ; and to give the ballot to the negro will be no innovation,
but a return to the old paths, — a restoration of that spirit of
liberty to which the sufferings and sacrifices of the Revolution
gave birth.

But if we had no respect for the early practices and traditions
of our fathers, we should still be compelled to meet the practical
question which will very soon be forced upon us for solution.
The necessity of putting down the rebellion by force of arms
was no more imperative than is that of restoring law, order, and
liberty in the States that rebelled. No duty can be more sacred
than that of maintaining and perpetuating the freedom which
the Proclamation of Emancipation gave to the loyal black men of
the South. If they are to be disfranchised, if they are to have
no voice in determining the conditions under which they are to
live and labor, what hope have they for the future? It will rest
with their late masters, whose treason they aided to thwart, to
determine whether negroes shall be permitted to hold property,
to enjoy the benefits of education, to enforce contracts, to have
access to the courts of justice, — in short, to enjoy any of those
rights which give vitality and value to freedom. Who can fail
to foresee the ruin and misery that await this race, to whom the
vision of freedom has been presented only to be withdrawn,
leaving them without even the aid which the master's selfish

90 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

commercial interest in their life and service formerly afforded
them? Will these negroes, remembering the battle-fields on
which two hundred thousand of their number bravely fought,
and many thousands heroically died, submit to oppression as
tamely and peaceably as in the days of slavery? Under such
conditions, there could be no peace, no security, no prosperity.
I am glad to be able to fortify my position on this point by the
great name and ability of Theophilus Parsons, of the Harvard
Law School. In discussing the necessity of negro suffrage at a
recent public meeting in Boston, he says : —

" Some of the Southern States have among their statutes a law pro-
hibiting the education of a colored man under a heavy penalty. The
whole world calls this most inhuman, most infamous. And shall we say
to the whites of those States, * We give you complete and exclusive power
of legislating about the education of the blacks ; but beware, for if you
lift them by education from their present condition, you do it under the
penalty of forfeiting and losing your supremacy? * Will not slavery, with
nearly all its evils, and with none of its compensation, come back at once ?
Not under its own detested name ; it will call itself apprenticeship ; it
will put on the disguise of laws to prevent pauperism, by providing that
every colored man who does not work in some prescribed way shall be
arrested, and placed at the disposal of the authorities ; or it will do its
work by means of laws regulating wages and labor. However it be
done, one thing is certain : if we take from the slaves all the protection
and defence they found in slavery, and withhold from them all power of
self-protection and self-defence, the race must perish, and we shall be
their destroyers."

Another patriotic speaker thus justly sums up his conclu-
sions : ** We must choose between two results. With these
four millions of negroes, either you must have four millions of
disfranchised, disarmed, untaught, landless, thriftless, non-pro-
ducing, non-consuming, degraded men ; or else you must have
four millions of landholding, industrious, arms-bearing, and vot-
ing population. Choose between these two ! "

Bear with me, fellow-citizens, while I urge still another con-
sideration. By the Constitution, only three fifths of the slaves
were counted in forming the basis of Congressional representa-
tion. The Proclamation of Emancipation adds the other two
fifths, which at the next census will be more than two millions.
If the negro be denied the franchise, and the size of the House
of Representatives remain as now, we shall have fifteen addi-

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 91

tional members of Congress from the States lately in rebellion,
without the addition of a single citizen to their population, and
we shall have fifteen less in the loyal States. This will not only
give six members of Congress to South Carolina, four sevenths
of whose people are negroes, but it will place the power of the
State, as well as the destiny of 412,000 black men, in the hands
of the 20,000 white men (less than the number of voters in our
own Congressional district) who, under the restricted suffrage
of that undemocratic State, exercise the franchise. Such an
unjust and unequal distribution of power would breed perpetual
mischief. The evils of the rotten borough system of England
would be upon us.

Indeed, we can find no more instructive lesson on the whole ^
question of suffrage than the history of its development in the
British empire. For more than four centuries, royal preroga-
tive and the rights of the people of England have waged per-
petual warfare. Often the result has appeared doubtful, often
the people have been driven to the wall, but they have always
renewed the struggle with unfaltering courage. Often have
they lost the battle, but they have always won the campaign.
Amidst all their reverses, each generation has found them
stronger, each half-century has brought them its year of jubi-
lee, and has added strength to the bulwark of law and breadth
to the basis of liberty. This contest has illustrated again and
again the saying that " eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
The growth of a city, the decay of a borough, the establish-
ment of a new manufacture, the enlargement of commerce, the
recognition of a new power, have, each in its turn, added new
and peculiar elements to the contest. Hallam says : " It would
be difficult, probably, to name any town of the least considera-
tion in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which did not, at
some time or other, return members to Parliament. This is so
much the case, that if, in running our eyes along the map,
we find any seaport, as Sunderland or Falmouth, or any in-
land town, as Leeds or Birmingham, which has never enjoyed
the elective franchise, we may conclude at once that it has
emerged from obscurity since the reign of Henry VIII." ^ It
was a doctrine old as the common law, maintained by our
Anglo-Saxon ancestors centuries before it was planted in the
American Colonies, that taxation and representation were insep-

> Constitutional History of England, Chap. XIII.

92 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

arable correlatives, the one a duty based upon the other as a
right But the neglect of the government to provide a system
which made the Parliamentary representation conform to the
increase of population, and the growth and decadence of cities
and boroughs, had, by almost imperceptible degrees, disfran-
chised the great mass of the British people, and placed the
legislative power in the hands of a few leading families of the
realm. Towards the close of the last century the question of
Parliamentary reform assumed a definite shape, and since that
time has constituted one of the most prominent features in Brit-
ish politics. It was found not only that the basis of representa-
tion was unequal and unjust, but that the right of the elective
franchise was granted to but few of the inhabitants, and was
regulated by no fixed and equitable rule. Here I may quote
from May's Constitutional History : —

" In some of the corporate towns, the inhabitants pajring scot and lot,
and freemen, were admitted to vote ; in some, the freemen only ; and in
many, none but the governing body of the corporation. At Buckingham
and at Bewdley the right of election was confined to the bailiff and twelve
burgesses ; at Bath, to the mayor, ten aldermen, and twenty-four com-
mon-councilmen ; at Salisbury, to the mayor and corporation, consisting
of fifty-six persons. And where more popular rights of election were
acknowledged, there were often very few inhabitants to exercise them.
Gatton enjoyed a liberal franchise. All freeholders and inhabitants pay-
ing scot and lot were entitled to vote, but they only amounted to seven.
At Tavistock all freeholders rejoiced in the franchise, but there were
only ten. At St. Michael all inhabitants paying scot and lot were elec-
tors, but there were only seven.

" In 1 793 the Society of the Friends of the People were prepared to
prove that in England and Wales seventy members were returned by
thirty-five places in which there were scarcely any electors at all ; that
ninety members were returned by forty-six places with less than fifty
electors ; and thirty-seven members by nineteen places having not more
than one hundred electors. Such places were returning members, while
Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester were unrepresented; and the
members whom they sent to Parliament were the nominees of peers and
other wealthy patrons. No abuse was more flagrant than the direct con-
trol of peers over the constitution of the Lower House. The Duke of
Norfolk was represented by eleven members ; Lord Lonsdale by nine ;
Lord Darlington by seven ; the Duke of Rutland, the Marquis of Buck-
ingham, and Lord Carrington, each by six. Seats were held in both
Houses alike by hereditary right." ^

1 May's Constitutional History uf England, (Boston, i86S,) Vol. I. pp. 266, 267.

SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY. 93

♦

Scotland and Ireland were virtually disfranchised ; Edinburgh
and Glasgow, the two largest cities of Scotland, had each a
constituency of only thirty-three members. A majority of the
members of the House of Commons were elected by six thou-
sand voters. This state of affairs afforded ready opportunities
for the moneyed aristocracy to buy seats in Parliament, by the
purchase of a few voters in rotten boroughs ; and also enabled
the ministry to secure a servile majority in the Commons. The
corruption resulting from these conditions, as exhibited in the
latter half of the eighteenth century, can hardly be realized by
the present generation. They afford, however, an illustration
of the universal truth, that a government which does not draw
its inspiration of liberty, justice, and morality from the people
will soon become both tyrannical and corrupt.

In these facts we discover the cause of the popular discontent
and outbreaks which have so frequently threatened the stability
of the British throne and the peace of the English people. As
early as 1770 Lord Chatham said, ** By the end of this century,
either the Parliament must be reformed from within, or it will
be reformed with a vengeance from without." The disastrous
failure of Republicanism in France delayed the fulfilment of his
prophecy; but when, in 1832, the people were on the verge of
revolt, the government was reluctantly compelled to pass the
celebrated Reform Bill, which has taken its place in English
history beside Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. It equal-
ized the basis of representation, and extended the suffrage to
the middle class; and though the property qualification prac-
tically excluded the workingman, a great step upward had been
taken, a concession had been made which must be followed by
others. The struggle is again going on. Its omens are not
doubtful. The great storm through which American liberty
has just passed gave a temporary triumph to the enemies of
popular right in England. But our recent glorious triumph is
the signal of disaster to tyranny, and victory for the people.
The liberal party in England are jubilant, and will never rest
until the ballot, that "silent vindicator of liberty," is in the hand
of the workingman, and the temple of English liberty rests on
the broad foundation of popular suffrage. Let us learn from
this, that suffrage and safety y like liberty and unio?t, are one and s,
inseparable.

It is related in ancient fable that one of the gods, dissatisfied A

94 SUFFRAGE AND SAFETY.

with the decrees of destiny, attempted to steal the box in which
were kept the decrees of the Fates ; but he found that it was
fastened to the throne of Jupiter by a golden chain, and to re-
move it would pull down the pillars of heaven. So is the
sacred ballot-box, which holds the decrees of freemen, linked
by the indissoluble bond of necessity to the pillars of the Re-
public ; and he who tampers with its decrees, or plucks it away
from its place in our temple, will perish amid the ruins he has
wrought.

But in view of the lessons of the years of contest that have
crowned the nation with victory, with the inspirations of liberty
and truth brightly lighting the pathway of the people, who can
doubt the equity of their voice ? The nations of the earth miist
not be allowed to point at us as pitiful examples of weak
selfishness. In the exigencies of this hour, our duty must be
so done that the eternal scrolls of justice will ever bear record
of the nobility of the nation's heart Animated, inspired, gen-
erous, fearless, in the work of liberty and truth, long will the
Republic live, a bulwark of God's immutable justice.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN

STATES.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February i, 1866.

The title that this speech bears in the pamphlet edition issued by its
authof is " Freedmen's Bureau — Restoration of the Southern States."

" An Act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refu-
gees" was approved on March 3, 1865. At the next session, Congress
passed a bill to amend this act, and " for other purposes," which was
vetoed by President Johnson, February 19, 1866. Pending this bill in
the House of Representatives, Mr. Garfield made this speech. As he
does not deal directly with the bill, but discusses the general question of
Reconstruction, an analysis of the pending measure is not necessary.

Mr. Garfield began with remarking that the pending bill was one of a
series of measures which it was the duty of the House to consider and
act upon during the current session. He therefore proposed to " discuss
in connection with it the general question of the restoration of the States
lately in rebellion." A succinct statement of facts concerning the status
of the Reconstruction question at that time will throw much light upon
the speech, as well as upon all the speeches in which he discusses Re-
construction topics.

President Johnson's plan of reconstruction rested on this constitu-
tional theory : —

1. The Rebel States did not, as a matter of fact, secede. " All in-
tended acts of secession," he said, in his message of December 4, 1865,
"were from the beginning null and void."

2. Individuals had committed treason, and enough of them should be
punished to " make treason odious."

3. The Rebel State governments must share the fate of the Confed-
erate government. He said : " The State institutions are prostrated,
laid out on the ground, and they must be taken up and adapted to the
progress of events."

4. To " take up " their institutions and " adapt them to the progress
of events," State conventions must be held. These conventions would

96 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

frame constitutions, provide for holding elections, and do all other
things preliminary to State reorganization.

5. When these constitutions had been framed and ratified, and the
State governments fully set up, and Representatives and Senators chosen,
it would be the duty of Congress to admit the Representatives and Sena-
tors, thereby recognizing the States as in proper relations to the Union.
Certain terms and conditions the President proppsed to make ; as the
abolition of slavery, the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, and
the repudiation of the debts contracted in carrying on the Rebellion.

President Johnson promptly set about carrying his theory into execu-
tion. May 29, 1865, he issued his amnesty proclamation, removing all
political disabilities on the score of participation in rebellion, save in
certain excepted cases. Beginning the same day, he appointed Pro-
visional Governors in the several Rebel States, who were to call consti-
tutional conventions, and in all ways to co-operate with the people of
the States in creating new State institutions. This proviso, in substance
found in all the proclamations appointing said Governors, defined the
exercise of the elective franchise : —

" Provided f that in any election that may be hereafter held for choos-
ing delegates to any State Convention, as aforesaid, no person shall be
qualified as an elector, or shall be eligible as a member of such Conven-
tion, unless he shall have previously taken the oath of amnesty, as set
forth in the President's proclamation of May 29, a. d. 1865, and is a
voter qualified as prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the State
of Nortli Carolina in force immediately before the 20th day of May,
1 86 1, the date of the so-called Ordinance of Secession ; and the said
Convention, when convened, or the Legislature that may be thereafter
assembled, will prescribe the qualification of electors, and the eligibility
of persons to hold office under the Constitution and laws of the State,
a power the people of the several States composing the Federal Union
have rightfully exercised from the origin of the government to the pres-
ent time." * *

The Governors appointed by these proclamations hastened to perform
their parts. Conventions were held, constitutions framed and ratified,
and State officers elected. December 18, 1865, the President informed
Congress, in a special message, that the people of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Ten-
nessee had reorganized their State governments, and were yielding obe-
dience to the laws of the United States. He now began to press for
the admission to Congress of their so-called Senators and Representa-
tives, and, February 19, 1866, he plainly told Congress that these States
were " entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as members of the
Union."

^ The quotation is made from the North Carolina proclamation of May 29^ 1865.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 97

While differing widely among themselves both as to constitutional
theories and practical measures, the Republican leaders differed still
more widely from the President. At the beginning of his administration,
there was a want of full confidence in him on the part of the Repub-
lican party, and the breach widened as he progressively unfolded his
scheme. After February 19, 1866, it was irreparable. First, these
leaders held that the President arrogated quite too much authority to
the Executive, and relegated Congress to quite too humble a part.
Second, they objected to his plan on its merits; (i.) as failing properly
to punish treason ; (2.) as failing to assure the peace and protection of
Southern Unionists, especially the freedmen. Holding these views, the
Republican majority in Congress had, by a concurrent resolution of De-
cember 13, 1865, created a joint Committee on Reconstruction, direct-
ing said committee to " inquire into the conditions of the States of what
formed the so-called Confederate States of America, and report whether
they or any of them are entitled to be represented in either house of
Congress, with leave to report by bill or otherwise."

Congress promptly replied to the President's veto of the Freedmen*s
Bureau Bill, and his demand of February 19, 1866, that the recon-
structed States were "entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights as
members of the Union," by adopting a concurrent resolution to the
eflfect that "no Senator or Representative shall be admitted to either
Iwanch of Congress from any of said States until Congress shall have
declared such State entitled to such representation." (House, February
20; Senate, March 2.) The "series of measures" to which Mr. Gar-
field refers in his opening are the pending bill, the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, and the two bills reported by the Reconstruction Committee in
April following, designed to accomplish the work of reconstruction ; the
logical basis of all which measures is contained in the majority report
of the Reconstruction Committee, made June 18, 1866. At the time
Mr. Garfield made the following speech, these measures had not been
folly reported, nor had the final breach with the President occurred.
This recital of facts shows the attitude of the President and of Congress
at the period to which this speech belongs.

MR. SPEAKER, — The bill now before the House is one
of a scries of measures which it is the duty of this House
to consider and act upon during the present session : and I shall,
in the time allotted to me, take a wider range than the provis-
ions of the bill itself would warrant, and discuss, in connection
with it, the general question of the restoration of the States lately
VOL. I. 7

98 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

in rebellion. I shall try to examine the situation of national
affairs resulting from the war; to determine, if possible, what
ought to be done to bring the republic back, by the surest,
safest, and shortest path, to the full prosperity of liberty and
peace. This is the result earnestly desired by ever}' patriotic
citizen. How to reach it is the great problem we are called
upon to solve. On the main points in the problem I believe
there is far less difference of sentiment in this House than is
generally supposed.

Men differ far more in theory than in practice. It would be
easy to find ten men who perfectly agree in recommending a
given course of action. It would be difficult to find ten who
would give the same reasons for that recommendation. If the
members of this House could lay aside their theories and ab-
stract definitions, and deliberate on questions of practical legis-
lation, many apparent differences would at once disappear. The
words and phrases that we use exert a powerful influence on
the opinions we form and the action which results.

In inquiring into the legal status of the insurgent States, we
are met at the threshold by three distinct theories, each of which
has its advocates in this House : —

1. That these States are now and have never ceased to be in
the Union, with all their rights unimpaired.

2. That they are out of the Union in fact and in law; that
by their acts of secession and rebellion they are reduced to the
condition of Territories ; and that it rests with Congress to deter-
mine whether they shall now or hereafter be admitted into the
Union.

3. The theory announced by the gentleman from New York,^
in his speech of three days ago, that, whatever may have been
the effect of the war upon them, we ought to accept the pres-
ent status of the Southern States, and regard them as having
resumed, under the President's guidance and action, their func-
tions of self-government in the Union.^

Mr. Speaker, I am unable fully to agree with either of these
propositions, and I shall endeavor to point out what seems to
me the error which has led to their adoption. Two terms made
use of in the debate on this subject appear to have caused
much of the diversity of opinion. I allude to the word ** State,"
and the phrase ** in the Union/'

1 Mr. Raymond. ' Congressional Globe, January 29, 1866, p. 491.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 99

The word " State/' as it has been used by gentlemen in this
discussion, has two meanings as perfectly distinct as though
different words had been used to express them. The confusion
arising from applying the same word to two different and dis-
similar objects, has had very much to do with the diverse con-
clusions which gentlemen have reached. They have given us
the definition of a *' State " in the contemplation of public or
international law, and have at once applied that definition, and
the conclusions based upon it, to the States of the American
Union, and the effects of war upon them. Let us examine the
two meanings of the word, and endeavor to keep them distinct
in their application to the questions before us.

Phillimore, the great English publicist, says : —

" For all purposes of international law, a state (S^/xo?, civitas^ Volk)
may be defined to be a people permanently occupying a fixed territory
{certam secUm)^ bound together by common laws, habits, and customs
into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized
government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and
things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace, and of
entering into all international relations with the other communities of the
globe." ^

Substantially the same definition may be found in Grotius,^ in
Burlamaqui,^ and in Vattel.* The primary point of agreement
in all these authorities is, that in contemplation of international
law. a state is absolutely sovereign, acknowledging no superior
on earth. In that sense the United States is a state, a sovereign
state, just as Great Britain, France, and Russia are states.

But what is the meaning of the word State as applied to Ohio
or Alabama? Is either of them a state in the sense of inter-
national law? They lack all the leading requisites of such a
state. They are only the geographical subdivisions of a state ;
and though endowed by the people of the United States with
the rights of local self-government, yet in all their external rela-
tions their sovereignty is completely destroyed, being merged
in the supreme Federal government.^ Ohio cannot make war ;
cannot conclude peace ; cannot make a treaty with any foreign
government ; cannot even make a compact with her sister State ;

' International Law, Part II. Chap. I. Sec. 65.

^ Rights of War and Peace, Book I. Chap. I. Sec. 14.

' Principles of Natural and Politic Law, Vol. II. Part L Chap. IV. Sec. 9.

* Law of Nations, Book I. Chap. I. Sec. i.

* See Halleck*s International I^w, Chap. III. Sec. 16.

lOO RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

cannot regulate commerce; cannot coin money; and has no
flag. These indispensable attributes of sovereignty the State of
Ohio does not possess, nor does any other State of the Union.
We call them States for want of a better name. We call them
States because the original Thirteen had been so designated be-
fore the Constitution was formed ; but that Constitution destroyed
all the sovereignty which those States were ever supposed to
possess in reference to external affairs.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the five great publicists, Grotius,
Puffendorf, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, and Vattel, who have been
so often quoted in this debate, and all of whom wrote more
than a quarter of a century, and some nearly two centuries,
before our Constitution was formed, can hardly be quoted as
good authorities in regard to the nature and legal relationships
of the component States of the American Union.

Even my colleague from the Columbus district,^ in his very
able discussion of this question, spoke as though a State of this
Union was the same as a state in the sense of international law,
with certain qualities added. I think he must admit that nearly
all the leading attributes of such a state are wanting to a State
of our Union.

Several gentlemen in this debate have quoted the well-known
doctrine of international law, ** that war annuls all existing com-
pacts and treaties between belligerents '* ; and they have con-
cluded, therefore, that our war has broken the Federal bond
and dissolved the Union. This would be true if the Rebel
States were states in the sense of international law, — if our
government were not a sovereign nation, but only a league
between sovereign states.

I oppose to this conclusion the unanswerable proposition that
this is a nation ; that the Rebel States are not sovereign states,
and therefore their failure to achieve independence was a fail-
ure to break the Federal bond, — to dissolve the Union. The
word "state" which they discuss is no more applicable to Ohio
than to Hamilton County. The States and counties of this
Union are equally unknown to international law.

There is another expression to which I have referred, and
which is used in an equally ambiguous manner. We have
discussed the question here whether these insurgent States are
in the Union. " In the Union. " What do we mean by the

* Mr. Shellabarger.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. lOi #

phrase? In one sense, every inch of soil that we own is " in the
Union." The Territory of Utah is in the Union. So is every
Territory of the West in the Union ; that is, under its authority,
subject to its right of eminent domain. On the other hand,
when some gentlemen say these States are " in the Union/'
they mean to include all their relations, all their rights and
privileges, which is quite another thing. From this ambiguity
in the use of terms have arisen most of the differences of opin-
ion on this subject.

I would not be understood as saying that international law
has nothing to do with the question before us. It has much to
do with it. It furnished us with the rules of civilized nations in
the conduct of war, the rights of belligerents, the treatment of
prisoners, the rules of surrender, cartel, and parole. Guided by
the precepts of international law, we are enabled to understand
the rights and duties of neutral powers, and the legal results of
successful war against domestic enemies and traitors. But when
gentlemen quote the doctrines of international law in reference
to sovereign nations, and apply them directly to the political
status of the States of this Union, they lead us into error.

In view of the peculiar character of our government, I ask:
In what condition has the war left the Rebel States? Did they
accomplish their own destruction ? Did they break the bonds
which bound them to the Union? I answer, they would have
done both these things, if anything short of successful revolu-
tion could do it. It was not, as some gentlemen hold, merely
an insurrection of individuals. It was not, as most civil wars
are, a war among the atoms, so to speak, flaming here and
there, as fire breaks out in a hundred places in a city. It was a
war of organized popular masses, or as the Supreme Court,
borrowing the prophetic words of De Tocqueville, calls it, *' a
territorial civil war," in which we granted them belligerent rights,
and claimed for ourselves both belligerent and sovereign rights.
We could pursue them with war as enemies, or try them by
criminal law as citizens, and hang them as condemned traitors.

I cannot agree with the distinguished gentleman from New
York,* when he holds that we are to deal with the Rebels only
as individuals. They struck at the Union through every instru-
mentality within their reach: through personal service in the
army and individual contributions of money; through volun-

* Mr. Ra3rmond.

102 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

tary associations to raise men and money ; through popular mass
meetings to inflame the passions and develop all the powers of
their people ; through township, county, and city corporations ;
through State conventions, that framed new constitutions in
order the more perfectly to sever the bonds which held them
to the Union ; and, to make a more powerful and effectual
instrument with which to establish their rebel sovereignty,
through State legislatures, by laws levying taxes for the pur-
chase of arms, ammunition, and all the materiel of war, by res-
olutions denouncing the pains and penalties of treason against
all citizens who refused to join their conspiracy; and finally,
through a coofederation of eleven States, consolidated into a
central sovereign government defactOy which became the most
absolute military despotism in modern history, — a despotism
which inundated with its deluge of tyranny all State guaranties,
all municipal privileges, and assumed absolute control of all per-
sons and property within the limits of its territory. There was
not a conceivable calamity which could have befallen us as a
nation that they did not attempt, with all their power and in
every available way, to bring upon us. Individuals fought us
as individuals; States as States fought us; and if a State can
commit treason, each of the sinful eleven committed it again
and again. The Rebels utterly subverted the governments of
their States, they broke every oath by which they had bound
themselves to the Union, they let go their hold upon the
Union, and attempted to destroy it.

What was the tie that bound those States to the Union ? For
example, what made Alabama a State of the Union? Read the
history of that transaction. When she had formed a constitu-
tion for herself in obedience to the law of Congress, when Con-
gress had approved that constitution as republican in form, the
following act was passed by the Congress of the United States,
and was approved by the President, December 14, 18 19: ''Re-
solved by the Senate and House of Represaitatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled. That the State of Ala-
bama shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the
United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original Stales in all respects whatso-
ever." Now, Alabama may violate a law of Congress, but she
cannot annul it. She may break it, but she cannot make it
void, except by successful revolution.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 103

By another law of Congress, approved April 21, 1820, it was
declared, "That all the laws of the United States which are
not locally inapplicable shall be extended to the State of Ala-
bama, and shall have the same force and effect within the same
as elsewhere in the United States." By this law Congress
extended our judiciary system over Alabama, dividing the
State into judicial districts ; and since that time, year by year,
Congress has been covering Alabama with Federal legisla-
tion as with a network of steel. Has Alabama broken all
these bonds? She has done all she could to break away from
the Union, but she has not been able to destroy or render in-
valid one law of the republic. Alabama let go of the Union,
but the Union did not let go of Alabama. We have held her
through four years of war, and we hold her still. When she
tried to break the Federal bonds, we called out millions of men
in order that not one jot or tittle should pass from these laws,
but that all should be fulfilled.

Let the stars of heaven illustrate our constellation of States.
When God launched the planets upon their celestial pathway,
he bound them all by the resistless power of attraction to the
central sun, around which they revolved in their appointed
orbits. Each may be swept by storms, may be riven by light-
nings, may be rocked by earthquakes, may be devastated by all
the terrestrial forces and overwhelmed in ruin, but far away in
the everlasting depths the sovereign sun holds the turbulent
planet in its place. This earth may be overwhelmed until the
high hills are covered by the sea ; it may tremble with earth-
quakes miles below the soil, but it must still revolve in its ap-
pointed orbit. So Alabama may overwhelm all her municipal
institutions in ruin, but she cannot annul the omnipotent de-
crees of the sovereign people of the Union. She must be held
forever in her orbit of obedience and duty.

Mr. Stevens. If the gentleman from Ohio will permit me, I will ask
him a question. Some of the angels undertook to dethrone the Al-
mighty, but they could not do it. And they were turned out of heaven
because they were unable to break its laws. Are those devilish angels
in or out of heaven ?

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his interruption.
The angels that kept not their first estate, — what was their
fate? It was the Almighty who opened the shining gates of

104 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

heaven and hurled them down to eternal ruin. They did not
go without his permission and help. And if these States are
out of the Union, it must be because the sovereign people of
the republic hurled them out; because they pleased to let
them go. I am glad the gentleman interrupted me : he hap-
pily illustrates my position.

I will not discuss what we might do with Alabama, but simply
what Alabama herself was able to do, and what she was not able
to do, toward breaking up this Union. Two years ago, when I
had the honor for the first time to address this House, the same
question that is now before us was under discussion. I main-
tained then, as I hold to-day, that the Rebel States are not, in
any legitimate sense of the words, out of the Union. I declared
then, as I declare now, that by their own act of treason and
rebellion they had forfeited all their rights in the Union, but
they had released themselves from none of their obligations.
It rests with the people of the republic to enforce the perform-
ance of these obligations, and, so soon as the national safety
will permit, restore them to their rights.

Now, let us inquire how the surrender of the military power
of the Rebellion affected the legal condition of those States.
When the Rebellion collapsed, and the last armed man of the
Confederacy surrendered to our forces, I affirm that there was
not in one of those States a single government that we did or
could recognize. There was not in one of those States a single
man, from governor down to constable, whom we could recog-
nize as authorized to exercise any official function whatever.
They had formed governments alien and hostile to the Union.
Not only had their officers taken no oaths to support the Con-
stitution of the United States, but they had heaped oath upon
oath to destroy it.

I go further. I hold that there were in those States no con-
stitutions of any binding force and effect, — none that we could
recognize. A constitution, in this case, can mean nothing less
than a constitution of government. A constitution must consti-
tute something, or it is no constitution. When we speak of the
constitution of Alabama, we mean the constitution of the gov-
ernment of Alabama. When the Rebels surrendered, there
remained no constitution in Alabama, because there remained
no government. Those States reverted into our hands by vic-
torious war, with every municipal right and every municipal

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 105

authority utterly and completely swept away. Whose duty was
it to assume the control of them under such circumstances?

In the first instance, it was the duty of the President of the
United States. Congress was not then in session. Military
resistance to the armies of the Union had ceased, and the laws
of war covered every inch of the conquered territory. I ap-
peal to the high authority of international law, as stated by
Halleck : —

"The government established over an enemy's territory during its
military occupation may exercise all the powers given by the laws of
war to the conqueror over the conquered, and is subject to all the re-
strictions which that code imposes. It is of little consequence whether
such government be called a military or a civil government ; its character
is the same, and the source of its authority the same : in either case, it
is a government imposed by the laws of war, and so far as it concerns
the inhabitants of such territory, or the rest of the world, those laws alone
determine the legality or illegality of its acts. But the conquering state
may, of its own will, whether expressed in its constitution or in its laws,
impose restrictions additional to those established by the usage of nations,
conferring upon the inhabitants of the territory so occupied privileges
and rights to which they are not strictly entitied by the laws of war ; and,
if such government of military occupation violate these additional restric-
tions so imposed, it is accountable to the power which established it, but
not to the rest of the world." *

The same author applies the laws of war to the United States
and holds that the President, as commander-in-chief, may estab-
lish a government over conquered territory, but that Congress
may at any time put an end to such a government, and organize
a new one.^

It was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,
in reference to the Mexican war, that on the conquest of a
country the President may establish a provisional government,
which may ordain laws and institute a judicial system, which
will continue in force after the war, and until modified by the
direct legislation of Congress or by the territorial government
established by its authority.^

From these authorities and from the facts in the case it is
evident, —

I. That, by conquest, the United States obtained complete
control of the Rebel territory.

^ International Law, Chap. XXXII. Sec i. a ibid., Chap. XXXIII. Sec. 16.
• Lftitensdorfer v, Webb, 20 Howard, 176.

1 06 RESTORA TION OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES.

2. That every vestige of municipal authority in those States
was, by secession, rebellion, and the conquest of the rebellion,
utterly destroyed.

3. That the state of war did not terminate with the actual
cessation of hostilities, but that under the laws of war it was the
duty of the President, as commander-in-chief, to establish gov-
ernments over the conquered people of the insurgent States,
which governments, no matter what may be their form, are
really military governments, deriving their sole power from the
President.

4. That the governments thus established are valid while the
state of war continues, and until Congress acts in the case.

5. That it belongs exclusively to the legislative authority of
the government to determine the political status of the insur-
gent States, either by adopting the governments the President
has established, or by permitting the people to form others,
subject to the approval of Congress.

The President might have sent a major-general, or any other
military officer, to govern each one of the Rebel States. But he
chose to consult the people, and allow them to adopt a form of
government resembling civil government, so that they might
the more easily come back to their places in due time. But
it was none the less a military government for that reason.
On any other ground the whole course of the President would
have been an unwarrantable usurpation.

Now, holding first that the President had full authority in the
matter, I ask, how long does his authority last? It is clearly
settled by the authorities which I have quoted that it lasts until
Congress speaks. So long as Congress is silent, the govern-
ments established by the President will remain.

It is now time, Mr. Speaker, that Congress should make its
declaration of policy and principle in reference to these govern-
ments. Let us not quarrel with the past Let us not endan-
ger the future because the President's policy in the past has not
been all we could desire. In one important particular I wish it
had been different. When he appealed to the people of the South
to co-operate with him in establishing his military governments,
I greatly regret that he did not appeal to all the loyal people.
I regret that he did not recognize the rights and consult the
wishes of those loyal millions who were made free and made
citizens also by the events of the war. But let that pass. What

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 107

he did he had a right to do; what remains to be done is for
Congress and the President in their legislative capacity to deter-
mine. Our rights in this direction are as ample as the rights of
conquest. What are they? I read from Woolsey the latest
utterance of public law, made with direct reference to our war:
** When a war ends to the disadvantage of the insurgents, muni-
cipal law may clinch the nail which war has driven, may hang,
after legal process, instead of shooting, and confiscate the whole
instead of plundering a part. But a wise and civilized nation
will exercise only so much of this legal vengeance as the inter-
ests of lasting order imperiously demand." ^

These capacious powers are in our hands. How shall we
use them? I agree with my friend from Connecticut,* that we
need not apply the strictissimum jus to these conquered people.
We should do nothing inconsistent with the spirit and genius
of our institutions. We should do nothing for revenge, but
everything for security; nothing for the past, everything for the
present and the future. Indemnity for the past we can never
obtain. The three hundred thousand graves in which sleep our
fathers and brothers, murdered by rebellion, will keep their
sacred trust till the angel of the resurrection bids the dead come
forth. The tears, the sorrow, the unutterable anguish of broken
hearts, can never be atoned for. We turn from that sad but
glorious past, and demand such securities for the future as can
never be destroyed.

And first, we must recognize in all our action the stupendous
facts of the war. In the very crisis of our fate God brought
us face to face with the alarming truth that we must lose our
own freedom or grant it to the slave. In the extremity of our
distress we called upon the black man to help us save the re-'
public, and amid the very thunder of battle we made a covenant
with him sealed both with his blood and ours, and witnessed by
Jehovah, that when the nation was redeemed he should be free
and share with us the glories and blessings of freedom. In the
solemn words of the great proclamation of emancipation, we not
only declared the slaves forever free, but we pledged the faith
of the nation " to maintain their freedom," — mark the words,
^^ to maintain their freedom'' The Omniscient Witness will ap-
pear in judgment against us if we do not fulfil that covenant.

* Introduction to the Study of International Law, (New York, 1867,) p. 231.

* Mr. Deming.

I08 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

Have we done it? Have we given freedom to the black man?
What is freedom? Is it a mere negation, — the bare privilege
of not being chained, bought and sold, branded and scourged?
If this be all, then freedom is a bitter mockery, a cruel delusion,
and it may well be questioned whether slavery were not better.

But liberty is no negation. It is a substantive, tangible reality.
It is the realization of those imperishable truths of the Declara-
tion, " that all men are created equal," that the sanction of all
just government is " the consent of the governed." Can these
truths be realized until each man has a right to be heard on all
matters relating to himself?

Mr. Speaker, we did more than merely break off the chains
of the slaves. The abolition of slavery added four million citi-
zens to the republic. By the decision of the Supreme Court,
by the decision of the Attorney-General, by the decision of all
the departments of our government, those men made free are,
by the act of freedom, made citizens. As another has said,
they must be " four million disfranchised, disarmed, untaught,
landless, thriftless, non-producing, non-consuming, degraded
men, or four million landholding, industrious, arms-bearing,
and voting population. Choose between the two ! "

If they are to be disfranchised, if they are to have no voice in
determining the conditions under which they are to live and
labor, what hope have they for the future? It will rest with their
late masters, whose treason they aided to thwart, to determine
whether negroes shall be permitted to hold property, to enjoy
the benefits of education, to enforce contracts, to have access to
the courts of justice, — in short, to enjoy any of those rights
which give vitality and value to freedom. In that event, who
can fail to foresee the ruin and misery that await this race,
to whom the vision of freedom has been presented only to
be withdrawn, leaving them without even the aid which the
master's selfish commercial interest in their life and service
formerly afforded them? Will these negroes, remembering the
battle-fields on which nearly two hundred thousand of their
number have so bravely fought, and many thousands have he-
roically died, submit to oppression as tamely and peaceably as
in the days of slavery? Under such conditions there could
be no peace, no security, no prosperity. The spirit of slavery
is still among us ; it must be utterly destroyed before we shall
be safe.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 109

Gibbon has recorded an incident which may serve to illustrate
the influence of slavery in this country. The Christians of
Alexandria, under the lead of Theophilus, their bishop, resolved,
as a means of overthrowing Egyptian idolatry, to demolish the
temple of Serapis and erect on its ruins a church in honor of
the Christian martyrs.

" The colossal statue of Serapis was involved in the ruin of his tem-
ple and religion It was confidendy affirmed that, if any impious

hand should dare to violate the majesty of the god, the heavens and
the earth would instantly return to their original chaos. An intrepid
soldier, animated by zeal, and armed with a weighty battle-axe, as-
cended the ladder, and even the Christian multitude expected with
some anxiety the event of the combat. He aimed a vigorous stroke
against the cheek of Serapis : the cheek fell to the ground ; the thunder
was still silent, and both the heavens and the earth continued to pre-
serve their accustomed order and tranquillity. The victorious soldier
repeated his blows : the huge idol was overthrown, and broken in
pieces ; and the limbs of Serapis were ignominiously dragged through
the streets of Alexandria. His mangled carcass was burnt in the am-
phitheatre amidst the shouts of the populace ; and many persons attrib-
uted their conversion to this discovery of the impotence of their tutelar
deity." ^

So sat slavery in this republic. The temple of the Rebellion
was its sanctuary, and seven million Rebels were its devoted
worshippers. Our loyal millions resolved to overthrow both
the temple and its idol. On the first day of January, 1863,
Abraham Lincoln struck the grim god on the cheek, and the
faithless and unbelieving among us expected to see the fabric
of our institutions dissolve into chaos because their idol had
been smitten. He struck it again; Congress and the States re-
peated the blow, and its unsightly carcass lies rotting in our
streets. The sun shines in the heavens brighter than before.
Let us remove the carcass and leave not a vestige of the mon-
ster. We shall never have done that, until wc declare that all
men shall be consulted in regard to the disposition of their lives,
liberty, and property.

Is this Congress brave enough and virtuous enough to ap-
ply that principle to every citizen, whatever be the color of his
skin? The spirit of our government demands that there shall
be no rigid, horizontal strata running across our political so-

1 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chap. XX VIII.

1 10 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES,

ciety, through which some classes of citizens may never pass
up to the surface ; but it shall be rather like the ocean, where
every drop can seek the surface and glisten in the sun. Until
we are true enough and brave enough to declare that in this
country the humblest, the lowest, the meanest of our citizens
shall not be prevented from passing to the highest place he is
worthy to attain, we shall never realize freedom in all its glorious
meanings. I do not expect we can realize this result imme-
diately ; it may be impossible to realize it very soon ; but let
us keep our eyes fixed in that direction, and march toward that
goal.

There is a second great fact which we must recognize, namely,
that the seven million white men lately in rebellion now stand
waiting to have their case adjudged, — to have it determined
what their status shall be in this government. Shall they be
held under military power? shall they be governed by depu-
ties appointed by the Executive? or shall they again resume
the functions of self-government in the Union? — are some of
the questions growing out of this second fact.

I will proceed to state, in a few words, what seems to me
necessary for the practical settlement of this question. In view
of the events of the war, and the peculiar and novel situation
of the parties and interests concerned ; in view of the powers
conferred upon us by the Constitution and the laws of war;
and in view of the solemn obligations which rest upon us to
maintain the freedom, security, and peace of all the citizens of
the republic, — I inquire, What practical measures can we adopt
best calculated to reach the desired result? It appears to me,
sir, that we should take action in regard to persons and in re-
gard to States.

In reference to persons, we must see to it that, hereafter,, per-
sonal liberty and personal rights are placed in the keeping of
the nation ; that the right to life, liberty, and property shall be
guaranteed to the citizen in reality, as it now is in the words
of the Constitution, and no longer be left to the caprice of
mobs or the contingencies of local legislation. If our Consti-
tution does not now afford all the powers necessary to that end,
we must ask the people to add them. We must give full force
and effect to the provision that '* no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." We
must make it as true in fact as it is in law, that " The citizens

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 1 1 1

of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities
of citizens in the several States." We must make American
citizenship the shield that protects every citizen, on every foot
of our soil. The bill now before the House is one of the means
for reaching this desirable result.

What shall be done with the States lately in rebellion? How
shall we discharge our duty toward them? I shall hail with joy
the day when they shall all be again in their places, loyally obe-
dient and fully represented by loyal men. Are they now enti-
tled to admission? Are they worthy of so great confidence?
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the prima facie evidence is against
them ; the burden of proof rests on each of them to show
whether it is fit again to enter the Federal circle in full com-
munion of privileges. We are sitting as a general court
of the nation. They are to appear at the bar of the repub-
lic, and show cause why they should be brought in. I say
the burden of proof is upon their shoulders. When we knew
them last, they were hurling the lightnings of war against us ;
they were starving our soldiers whom they held as prisoners
of war in their dungeons; they were burning our towns; they
were hating the Union above all things, and were bound by
bloody oaths to destroy it. Thus stood the case when Con-
gress adjourned ten months ago. They must give us proof,
strong as holy writ, that they have washed their hands and
are worthy again to be trusted. No rumors of change; no
Delphic oracle, telling beautiful tales of peace and restoration ;
no gentle declarations like those that we hear from the other
side of this chamber, that the people of the South " have ac-
cepted the results of the war," — will suffice. I know they have
accepted the results of war, — as Buckner accepted them at
Fort Donelson, as Pemberton accepted them at Vicksburg, as
Lee accepted them last April in Virginia.

I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not expect seven mil-
lion men to change their hearts — to love what they hated
and hate what they loved — on the issue of a battle. Nor are
we set up as a judge over their beliefs, their loves, or their
hatreds. Our duty is to demand that before we admit them
they shall give us sufficient assurance that, whatever they may
think, believe, or wish, their actions in the future shall be such
as loyal men can approve. What have they done to give us
that assurance?

112 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a proclamation issued a few
days since by Benjamin G. Humphreys, late a general in the
Rebel army, now the so-called Governor of Mississippi, which
will illustrate the spirit in which it is desired to administer the
affairs of reorganized Mississippi. He says : —

" Whereas section six of an act of the Legislature of the State of Mis-
sissippi, entitled, * An Act authorizing the issuance of treasury notes as
advance upon cotton, approved December 19, 1861,' provides that
whenever the present blockade of the ports of the Confederate States
shall be removed," etc., etc

** Now, therefore, I, Benjamin G. Humphreys, Governor of the State
of Mississippi, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the constitution
and laws of said State, do hereby proclaim that the blockade of the ports
of the Confederate States has been removed ; and I do require all per-
sons to whom advances have been made to deliver the number of bales
of cotton upon which they have received an advance, in accordance
with their respective receipts on file in the auditor's office, within ninety
days from the date of this proclamation."

Now, what does that mean ? It means that he recognizes as
valid the acts of the legislature of the late Rebel State of Mis-
sissippi and of the Confederate States, and bases his proclama-
tion thereon. This proclamation reached us only a few days
ago. And yet there are members of this House who ask us to
admit the Representatives of Mississippi at once!

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the neighboring State of Virginia a
law has lately been passed which declares certain negroes
vagrants, and provides that as a penalty they may be sold
into slavery. Major-General Terry, on the 24th of January,
issued his military order nullifying that law. Is that a civil
government in which the military authorities abrogate the laws?
Are the men who make such laws worthy of our confidence?
I say again, the case is against them, the burden of proof is on
their shoulders. They must purge themselves before I can
consent to let them in.

How stands the case in Tennessee, the least treasonable of
all? In a letter addressed to yourself, Mr. Speaker, under date
of January 15, 1866, after pleading for the admission of the del-
egation from that State, Governor Brownlow says : —

" Not a man south of Tennessee should be admitted until those States
manifest less of the spirit of rebellion, and elect a more loyal set of men,
and men who can take the Congressional test oath, which but few of
those elected can do.

RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. 113

" If the removal of the Federal troops from Tennessee must necessa-
rily follow upon the admission of our Congressional delegation to their
seats, why, then, and in that case, the loyal men of Tennessee beg to be
without Representatives in Congress. But our members can be admit-
ted, and a military force retained sufficient to govern and control the
rebellious. I tell you, and through you all whom it may concern, that
without a law to disfranchise Rebels and a force to carry out the provis-
ions of that law, this State will pass into the hands of the Rebels, and a
terrible state of affairs* is bound to follow. Union men will be driven
from the State, forced to sacrifice what they have, and seek homes else-
where. And yet Tennessee is in a much better condition than any of
the other revolted States, and affords a stronger loyal population.

" Those who suppose the South is ' reconstructed,' and that her people
cheerfully accept the results of the war, are fearfully deceived. The whole
South is full of the spirit of rebellion, and the people are growing more
bitter and insolent every day. Rebel newspapers are springing up all
over the South, and speaking out in terms of bitterness and reproach
against the government of the United States. These papers lead the
people, and at the same time reflect their sentiments and feelings. Of
the twenty-one papers in Tennessee, fourteen are decidedly Rebel, out-
spoken and undisguised, some of them pretending to acquiesce in the
existing state of affairs. In all the vacancies occurring in our legis-
lature, even with our franchise law in force, Rebels are invariably
returned, and in some instances Rebel officers limping from wounds
received in battle fighting against the United States forces ; and yet
I tell you that Tennessee is in a better condition than any other re-
volted State.

" Others will give you a more favorable account. I cannot in justice
to myself and the truth. I think I know the Southern people. I have
lived fifty-eight years in the South of choice, and two at the North of
necessity."

In view of these facts, we await further proofs.

But, sir, there is a duty laid upon us by the Constitution.
That duty is declared in these words : " The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of
government." What does that mean? Read the twenty-first
and forty-third numbers of the Federalist, and you will under-
stand what the fathers of the Constitution meant when they put
that clause into our organic law. With wonderful foresight,
amounting almost to prophecy, they appear to have foreseen
just such a contingency as the one that has arisen. Madi-
son said that an insurrection might arise too powerful to be
suppressed by the local authorities, and Congress must have

VOL. 1. 8

\

114 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

authority to put it down, and to see that no usurping govern-
ment shall be erected on the ruins of a State.

What is a republican form of government? When the Union
was formed the free colored people were not a tenth of the pop-
ulation of any State. Now all black men are free citizens ; and
" we are asked," as the lamented Henry Winter Davis has so
clearly stated it, " to recognize as republican such despot-
isms as these: in North Carolina 631,000 citizens will ostra-
cize 331,000 citizens ; in Virginia, 719,000 citizens will ostracize
533,000 citizens; in Alabama, 596,000 citizens will ostracize
437,000 citizens; in Louisiana, 357,000 citizens will ostracize
350,000 citizens; in Mississippi, 353,000 citizens will ostracize
436,000 citizens ; in South Carolina 291,000 citizens will ostra-
cize 411,000 citizens."

We are asked to guarantee all these as republican govern-
ments ! Gentlemen, upon the other side of the House ask us to
let such shameless despotisms as these be represented here as
republican States. I venture to assert that a more monstrous
proposition was never before made to an American Congress.

I am therefore in favor of the amendment to the Constitution
that passed the House yesterday, to reform the basis of repre-
sentation.^ I could have wished that it had been more thorough
and searching in its terms; I took it as the best we could get;
but I say here, before this House, that I will never, so long as I
have any voice in political affairs, rest satisfied until the way is
opened by which these colored citizens, so soon as they are
worthy, shall be lifted to the full rights of citizenship. I will
not be factious in my action here. If I cannot to-day get all
I desire, I will try again to-morrow, securing all that can be
obtained to-day. But so long as I have any voice or vote here,
it shall aid in giving the suffrage to every citizen qualified, by
intelligence, to exercise it.

Mr. Speaker, I know of nothing more dangerous to a republic
than to put into its very midst four million people stripped of
the rights of citizenship, robbed of the right of representa-
tion, but bound to pay taxes to the government. If they can
endure it, we cannot. The murderer is to be pitied more than
the murdered man; the robber more than the robbed; and
we who defraud four million citizens of their rights are injuring

1 Namely, an amendment adopted by the House, January 31, 1866, but rejected
by the Senate.

RESTORA TtON OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES. 1 1 S

ourselves vastly more than we are injuring those whom we de-
fraud. I say that the inequality of rights before the law, which
is now a part of our system, is more dangerous to us than to
the black man whom it disfranchises. It is like a foreign sub-
stance in the body, a thorn in the flesh; it will wound and
disease the body politic.

I remember that this question of suffrage caused one of the
greatest civil wars in the history of Rome. Ninety years before
Christ, when Rome was near the climax of her glory, just before
the dawn of the Augustan age, twelve peoples of Italy, to whom
the franchise was denied, rose in rebellion against Rome ; and
after three years and ten months of bloody war they compelled
Rome to make her first capitulation for three hundred years.
For three hundred years the Roman eagle had been carried
triumphantly over every battle-field ; but when iron Rome, with
all her pride and glory, met men who were fighting for the
right of suffrage, she was compelled to succumb, and give the
ballot to the twelve peoples to save herself from dissolution.
Let us learn wisdom from that lesson, and extend the suffrage
to people who may one day bring us more disaster than foreign
or domestic war has yet done.

I must refer for a moment to the proposition of my friend
from Connecticut,^ who asks us to imbed in the imperishable
bulwarks of the Constitution an amendment that will forbid
secession in the future. I want no such change of the Consti-
tution. The Rebels never had, by the Constitution, the right
to secede. If we have not settled that question by war, it can
never be settled by a court. The court of war is higher than
any other tribunal. As the Governor of Ohio has so well said,
" These things have been decided in the dread court of last re-
sort for peoples and nations. By as much as the shock of armed
hosts is more grand than the intellectual tilt of lawyers, as the
God of battles is a more awful judge than any earthly court, by
so much does the dignity of this contest and the finality of this
decision exceed that of any human tribunal." I care not what
provision might be in the Constitution ; if any States of this
Union desire to rebel and break up the Union, and are able to
do it, they will do it in spite of the Constitution. All I want,
therefore, is so to amend our Constitution and administer our
laws as to secure liberty and loyalty among the citizens of the
Rebel States.

* Mr. Deming.

Ii6 RESTORATION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES.

I am not among those who believe that all men in the South
are enemies in the eye of the law. Their property was " enemy's
property " when it was transported and used contrary to the
laws of the government ; but all are not therefore enemies of the
government. Judge Sprague, in the Amy Warwick case,^ dis-
tinctly declared that they were only enemies in a technical sense ;
and in reference to property, Justice Nelson, in 1862, declared
distinctly that men who resided within the limits of the rebel-
lious States were not therefore to be considered as enemies.
He distinctly declared that the question of their property be-
ing enemy's property depended upon the use made of it. If
the attempt was made to take and transport the property in
opposition to law, then it fell under the technical category of
enemy's property, and not otherwise. I take it for granted that
the farm of Andrew Johnson, in Tennessee, was never enemy's
property. If he had undertaken to violate the revenue laws in
the use of his property, it would have become such.

I remember that the long range of mountains stretching from
Western Virginia, through Tennessee and Georgia, to the sand-
hills of Mississippi, stood like a promontory in the fiery ruin
with which the Rebellion had involved the republic. I re-
member that East Tennessee, with its loyal thousands, stood
like a rock in the sea of treason. I remember that thirty-five
thousand brave men from Tennessee stood beside us to assist
in putting down the Rebellion. They are not enemies of the
country, and never were ; and it is cruelly wicked, by any fic-
tion of the law, to call them so.. To those patriotic men of
Tennessee let me say, I want you to show that there is behind
you a loyal State government, based on the will of loyal peo-
ple, and that districts of loyal constituents have sent you here.
When you do that, you shall have my vote in favor of your
admission. But the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Mr. Speaker, let us learn a lesson from the dealings of God
with the Jewish nation. When his chosen people, led by the
pillar of cloud and fire, had crossed the Red Sea and traversed
the gloomy wilderness with its thundering Sipai, its bloody bat-
tles, disastrous defeats, and glorious victories, — when near the
end of their perilous pilgrimage they listened to the last words
of blessing and warning from their great leader, before he was
buried with immortal honors by the angel of the Lord, — when
at last the victorious host, sadly joyful, stood on the banks

^ 2 Sprague 's Decisions, 123.

RESTORA TION OF THE SO UTHERN STA TES. 1 1 7

of the Jordan, their enemies drowned in the sea or slain in the
wilderness, — they paused, and, having reviewed the history of
God's dealings with them, made solemn preparation to pass
over and possess the land of promise. By the command of
God, given through Moses and enforced by his great successor,
the ark of the covenant, containing the tables of the Law and
the sacred memorials of their pilgrimage, was borne by chosen
men two thousand cubits in advance of the people. On the
farther shore stood Ebal and Gerizim, the mounts of cursing
and blessing, from which, in the hearing of all the people, were
pronounced the curses of God against injustice and disobe-
dience, and his blessing upon justice and obedience. On the
shore, between the mountains and in the midst of the people, a
monument was erected, and on it was written the words of the
law, " to be a memorial unto the children of Israel for ever and
ever." Let us learn wisdom from this illustrious example. We
have passed the Red Sea of slaughter; our garments are yet
wet with its crimson spray. We have crossed the fearful wil-
derness of war, and have left our three hundred thousand heroes
to sleep beside the dead enemies of the republic. We have
heard the voice of God amid the thunders of battle command-
ing us to wash our hands of iniquity, — to '* proclaim liberty
throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." When
we spurned his counsels, we were defeated, and the gulfs of
ruin yawned before us. When we obeyed his voice, he gave
us victory. And now, at last, we have reached the confines of
the wilderness. Before us is the land of promise, the land of
hope, the land of peace, filled with possibilities of greatness
and glory too vast for the grasp of the imagination. Arc we
worthy to enter it? On what condition may it be ours to enjoy
and transmit to our children's children? Let us pause and
make deliberate and solemn preparation. Let us, as repre-
sentatives of the people, whose servants we are, bear in ad-
vance the sacred ark of republican liberty, with its tables of the
law inscribed with the " irreversible guaranties " of liberty. Let
us here build a monument on which shall be written, not only
the curses of the law against treason, disloyalty, and oppres-
sion, but also an everlasting covenant of peace and blessing
with loyalty, liberty, and obedience; and all the people will
say, Amen !

AMERICAN SHIPPING.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February i, 1866, and May 25, 187a

Pending a bill providing that no ship or vessel which had been re-
corded or registered as an American vessel pursuant to law, and which
had afterward been licensed or otherwise authorized to sail under a for-
eign flag or the protection of a foreign government during the existence
of the rebellion, should be deemed or registered as an American vessel,
or should have the rights and privileges of American vessels, except under
an act of Congress authorizing such registry, Mr. Garfield made the fol-
lowing remarks, February i, 1866.

MR. SPEAKER, — Without having examined carefully
the navigation laws of this country, I have looked into
tHem enough to be satisfied of one or two things, which I de-
sire to suggest to this House before the vote is taken on the
passage of this bill.

In the first place, we have navigation laws borrowed from
those monuments of tyranny, the Navigation Laws of Great
Britain, which, more than any other laws ever enacted by Par-
liament, were the cause of the American Revolution. Among
other features of these laws is one that forbids the buying of a
vessel from a foreign country and sailing it under our flag, if
it is a foreign bottom, no matter how cheaply we may pur-
chase it, or under what circumstances we may obtain it. Un-
less we ourselves lay out upon it more money than the origi-
nal cost of building the bottom abroad, we cannot sail it under
the American flag. That, of course, shuts out all foreign-built
vessels, however valuable they may be at any time. But I am
not discussing that subject now, nor will I enter into a con-
sideration of it at this time.

The question now under consideration is this. During this
great war, when we were unable to protect our shipping on the

I

[

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 119

high seas, to protect our ships sailing under our own flag,
there were many patriotic American citizens who simply regis-
tered their vessels for sailing under a foreign flag, that they
might carry on their commerce without having their property
destroyed by the pirates infesting the seas: Now, when eight
hundred thousand tons of American shipping has thus been
transferred by registry or by sale to foreign flags, it is pro-
posed that none of it shall ever be registered again with the
rights and privileges of American vessels, except by express
act of Congress. One fifth of our tonnage has left us, and by
this bill will be wholly excluded from our merchant marine.

Now, one gentleman ^ has spoken of these vessels as deserters
in the same way precisely that we speak of deserters from our
army. I care far more about our tonnage on the sea than I
care about the individual shipper who took a register under a
foreign flag. It is not now a question with me what the status
of the shipper himself may be. I do not propose to injure all
the interests of our merchant marine for the purpose of spiting
a few of our speculators. It seems to me it would show a great
want of proper policy on our part to do so.

Mr. Lynch. What I did say was this : that it would be impolitic for
any government to encourage the desertion of its citizens with their
property during a period of war, those citizens identifying their interests
for the time being with the interests of the enemy. My remarks had no
reference whatever to " skippers." I did say, and I now repeat, that
every man who, during the war, put his vessel under a foreign flag iden-
tified his interests with those of the foreigners who were assisting in the
destruction of our commerce ; and if we encourage such desertion, and
pay a premium upon it, some of our citizens will always desert us with
their property in time of war. I hold that we should not give encourage-
ment to conduct of this sort.

Mr. Speaker, if in time of war I own a piece of property
which I cannot keep safe in this country, and the keeping of
which will ruin me pecuniarily, I ask whether the Congress of
my country should prohibit me from selling that property to
foreigners, or, if I have sold it, prohibit me from repurchasing
it and using it here where I first acquired that property? If I
sell to a Canadian, or any other foreigner, an engine which I
own, and which I have used perhaps to operate a saw-mill on
the Ohio, is it right that I should be prohibited from repurchas-

1 Mr. Lynch, of Maine.

120 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

ing that engine by and by, and using it in this country? Now,
sir, this bill proposes that, whenever an American vessel shall
have been sold to a foreigner, or even registered to sail under
a foreign flag, such vessel shall never be permitted to re-enter
our service without special authority from Congress.

Mr. Eliot. This bill does not refer to sales of vessels at all, neither
sham sales nor bona fide sales. It only covers a class of cases where
American ship-owners have obtained for their vessels the protection of
foreign powers, have procured permits or licenses from foreign govem-
ments, thus waiving the benefit of their own flag for the sake of securing
the protection of foreign powers. The bill provides that in such cases
the vessel shall no longer be deemed an American vessel, unless the
party interested can satisfy Congress that the vessel ought to be granted
an American register.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement is all the worse for
his cause. He says that the bill does not apply to a vessel that
was sold, alienated to a foreigner, but pierely to vessels which
were registered to sail under a foreign flag that could protect
them. What the owners in the latter cases did is not nearly so
bad as the act of those who alienated their vessels to foreigners.
I say that the owner of a vessel, if our flag cannot protect it,
ought to be entitled to register his vessel under a flag that can
protect it; and when we are again able to protect it, I am in
favor, if not for his sake, at least for the sake of the merchant
service, of allowing his vessel to come back and sail under our
flag, and thus increase our tonnage.

I maintain that this question is 'a matter of tonnage, and not
of men. I am in favor of the amendment suggested by my
colleague,^ that all these cases be referred to the Secretary of
the Treasury, who may look into the question of the loyalty of
the owner; and that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be au-
thorized to register his vessel, if he be a loyal man. I would be
the last man to grant any favor to a rebel ; but I would grant
favors to the American merchant service. I would increase our
tonnage.

Some gentlemen here propose to wait for the increase of our
tonnage until the shipbuilders of Maine and New Hampshire,
and other States on the Atlantic seaboard, can build us vessels.
The gentleman from Maine ^ has said that in Nova Scotia vessels
can be built at a cost of forty dollars to the ton, while in Maine

1 Mr. Spaulding. a Mr. Pike.

i

AMERICAN SHIPPING, 1 2 1

their construction costs one hundred dollars to the ton. There-
fore, it is urged, we cannot compete with foreign shipbuilders.
Now I do not propose to give the men in the Atlantic cities
sixty dollars on the hundred, when we can get increased service
for the country by simply re-registering the vessels which we
could not protect.

Mr. Pike. Will the gentleman tell me what difference it makes to the
shipper in New York, whether he imports his goods in British or Ameri-
can bottoms ? What difference is there in insurance ? And will he tell
me further, whether it is not a fact that of the goods imported more than
seventy-five per cent do not come in British bottoms ?

I will answer the gentleman with one general fact, namely,
that, for some reason deemed good by them, the owners of those
vessels which have been registered under foreign flags desire to
bring their ships back. That is proved. If it is for the advantage
of the ships to come back for business, they will come back.

Mr. Pike. The gentleman speaks, not of shipbuilders, but of mer-
chants. He says that merchants would forthwith have to pay enhanced
prices for vessels. I ask him whether he cannot employ British ships
on precisely the same terms to import his goods as American ships ?
Let him answer that question.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking now of shipping, and not of the
interests of merchants of New York. We arc talking of our
general power to export and import goods ; and now, when it is
proved that a part of our tonnage has gone during the war, we
are asked to keep it out in order that the shipbuilders of this
country may have the job of filling the vacuum. I propose we
shall fill that vacuum by the most expeditious method in our
power.

I call this House to witness that at the last session I declared,
as I now declare, myself forever opposed to all monopolies,
whether of railroads, shipbuilders, or of any other associations,
which propose to cripple the commerce of the republic cither
among the States or upon the high seas. I look on this as one
of those monopolies, and I am surprised that my able and dis-
tinguished friend from the Galena district, Illinois,^ should vote
in any other way than against this measure, he being a strong
anti-monopoly man, as he has so often avowed himself on this
floor. I do not care what political company it puts me in; I

^ Mr. Washburn.

122 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

do not care who associates with me; I shall associate with
every man who puts his foot down on these monopolies, one
of which I declare this to be.

[After some brief speeches from several gentlemen, Mr. Garfield con-
tinued.]

Mr. Speaker, I have only two things to say before I call for
the previous question and close the debate.

The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts^ said this
was a proposition to exclude men who had deserted our flag.
I declare the gentleman has not met the point. It is not a law
against men; it is a law against tonnage, and not men. He
may make all the legislation he pleases against letting disloyal
men come back, and I will vote with him ; but let him make
that discrimination.

He says we propose to change the policy of the government.
My answer is in one word. It is the gentleman himself who
is proposing to change the policy of the government, as the
Secretary of the Treasury is every day allowing these vessels
to be re-rcgistered. They propose by this change of the law to
keep these vessels out of our merchant marine. We are simply
opposing a change in the law in favor of a monopoly.

The gentleman from Maine ^ says, if we make free trade on
this subject, let us make free trade on all. He will not deter
me from my purpose by shaking that red rag before me. I do
not care what name he calls it ; I know it is not free trade ; I
know only that what he proposes is to discriminate against all
other property and in favor of the property of the shipbuilders.
If he will apply the same law to property in ships that he applies
to all kinds of property in the great West, then he will find that
he cannot maintain his law. All I ask is that the same law
shall be applied to both. I call the previous question.

On the 25th of May, 1870, pending a bill to revive the navigation
and the commercial interests of the United States, by means of rebates
of duties on shipbuilding materials imported, and by means of bounties
on tonnage, Mr. Garfield said : —

Mr. Speaker, — I desire in the ten minutes awarded me to
present three points for the consideration of the House.

1 Mr. Banks. a Mr. Blaine

i

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 123

I have studied this subject as presented in the report of the
committee and elsewhere, and it seems to me that the trouble
about our tonnage at the present time is not that there is a lack
of tonnage on the ocean, but that American people do not con-
trol a requisite share of that tonnage. It seems to me we shall
make a mistake if we proceed on the supposition that there is
a lack of tonnage, and that greater means of transportation on
the high seas are needed. In a report made in 1 861 by an
American consul, which appears to be a very comprehensive
one, it was shown that the tonnage of the world was about
seventeen million tons, of which the United States owned five
and a half millions ; Great Britain five and three quarters mil-
lions ; and all other countries about five and three quarters mil-
lions. Or we might say that the tonnage on the high seas was
about equally divided into three equal shares, of which one was
held by the United States, one by Great Britain, and one by all
other countries.

It appears that now, in consequence of the war and various
other causes, there has been a change in the relative ownership
of the tonnage, but not in the total amount. There are no
complaints from shippers that they cannot get merchandise
shipped across the sea. They complain only that the Ameri-
can flag does not cover a sufficient amount of the tonnage.
The question, then, which we have to determine, is this : Will
we remedy the evil by increasing the total volume of tonnage,
or shall we seek some method of placing a greater share of it
under the American flag?

From the latest reports of our Treasury Department, it ap-
pears that the total tonnage of Great Britain is now 5,500,000
tons, while the tonnage of the United States is 4,144,640 tons.
But the tonnage of the United States includes 1,523,931 tons in
the coasting trade, 661,366 on our lakes, and 392,901 on our
rivers, leaving our ocean tonnage only 1,566,421 tons, — vastly
less than it was before the war.

The trouble is not that we have not tonnage at home ; it is
that we lack tonnage on the seas. At the present moment
there are one hundred and seventeen steamers that plough the
ocean between America and Europe, and not one of them flies
the American flag. Nevertheless, a respectable share of the
capital in those ships is owned by Americans. The German
line is very largely owned by American citizens; the Guion

124 AMERICAN SHIPPING.

line is, I think, also mainly owned by American citizens ; but
these citizens are compelled to put their capital into ships that
sail under foreign flags. These facts present the first point I
desired to make, in order that we may see where the difficulty
lies, and keep this fact in view in adopting remedies.

I now desire to call the attention of the House to a second
point, which is this. I object to the bill as reported by the
committee because it docs not give aid to that part of our com-
merce that needs relief, to our foreign tonnage, and does give
aid where relief is not needed. Now, I can have no better
pfoof of this than the sensitiveness of the gentleman from
Maine ^ in regard to any amendment which shall limit the
operation of the bill to vessels engaged in foreign trade. When
the bill was open to amendment yesterday, and when the gen-
tleman from lowa^ proposed an amendment of six words to
limit all these drawbacks, bounties, subsidies, tonnage dues, and
various aids provided in the bill to ships of two thousand tons
and upward, the gentleman in charge of the bill would not
permit the amendment to be offered. This morning the gen-
tleman has offered a substitute, which I have read at the clerk's
desk, and I find it only limits the operation of the bill to ships
of one thousand tons and upward, which would include a large
share of the shipping even on our Northern lakes, and which,
in all its more important features, will apply to the coasting
trade. I desire, therefore, to say that, whatever may be the
purpose of those who support this bill, it is perfectly clear
that it will give great additional advantages to the builders of
ships for the coasting trade, — a class of men who are to-day
engaged in a business of which they have the absolute monop-
oly as against all foreigners. There is not a keel owned or
built by foreigners that can, under our laws, engage in our lake
and coasting trade. All the vessels engaged in it are built and
wholly owned by Americans. There appears to be no other
falling off in our coasting trade than that which the natural
competition of railroads has produced. Now, notwithstanding
this monopoly, a bill is proposed that cannot take less than
ten million dollars a year out of the treasury, to increase the
profits of those who are engaged m building vessels for the
coasting trade.

But I have further asserted that this bill will not give the

1 Mr. Lynch. 2 ^fr. Allison.

AMERICAN SHIPPING. 125

needed relief to our foreign commerce. And why? It will
not enable our shipbuilders to compete with the shipbuilders
of the Clyde. From the study that I have been able to give to
the subject, I affirm that all the subsidies, bounties, and draw-
backs provided in this bill will not enable us to compete with
the cheap iron vessels built on that river. Germany and all the
maritime countries of Europe, even those that admit shipbuilding
materials free of duty, have utterly failed to compete with the
Clyde shipbuilders. All the maritime countries of Europe are
to-day going to them to buy their vessels for their own trade.
The price of labor and materials there is so much less than here
that it will require nearly one hundred per cent of government
aid to enable us to compete with them. This is the testimony
of experts and the experience of other nations. I affirm, there-
fore, that for the purposes of our foreign trade this bill is wholly
inadequate, and for the purposes of the coasting trade it is
wholly unnecessary. On this statement, to which I challenge the
attention of the House, I rest my opposition to this bill. But I
will add another consideration.

There is one feature of this bill, the subsidy provision, which
is odious to the American people. It is a feature, I think,
which no man in this House, certainly no representative of an
inland district, can support and sustain himself before his con-
stituents. And now we are called upon, at the last moment, to
vote, as we shall be compelled to do, I presume, under the pre-
vious question, upon a new bill, which has not yet been read,
but which has been reported by the committee as a substitute
for the original bill and all the amendments. Under these cir-
cumstances, I think it wiser to lay the bill and the pending
amendments on the table, or to recommit and postpone it until
in calmer times and with fuller deliberation we can devise some
real and effective remedy for our decayed commerce. I am
not at liberty to make a motion on this subject, and will now
return the floor to the gentleman from Illinois,^ by whose
courtesy I have been occupying it.

1 Mr. Farnsworth.

\

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

June 8, 1866.

At its annual meeting held in Washington, D. C, in February, 1866,
the National Association of School Superintendents memorialized Con-
gress to establish a National Bureau of Education. A bill was also pre-
pared by the direction of the Association, embodying its vievi's. By the
request of the Association, Mr. Garfield presented the memorial and the
bill in the House of Representatives. The bill was read twice, referred to
a select committee of seven, and ordered printed. April 3 following, he
reported from the committee d substitute for the original bill, — changed
only in the name. June % he closed the debate upon the bill in the
following speech. The vote was adverse. Immediately a motion to
reconsider was entered. June 1 9, the motion to reconsider was carried,
and the bill passed. At the next session the bill passed the Senate, and
the President's approval, March 2, 1867, made it law.

This measure was peculiarly Mr. Garfield's work. He introduced the
subject to the House, was the chairman of the special committee, re-
ported the second bill, and was its principal champion on the floor.
Both the Bureau and his speech attracted the attention of educators and
the friends of education beyond the sea. An example is furnished by

the following letter : —

" RocHDvVLE, January 4, 186S.

" Dear Sir, — I ^vrite to thank you for sending me a copy of General
Garfield's speech on education. I have read it with much interest

" The department now to be constituted at Washington will doubt-
less prepare statistics which will inform the world of what is doing in the
United States on the Education question ; and the volume it will publish
will have a great effect in this country, and, indeed, in all civilized
countries. You will have observed the increased interest in education
shown in England since the extension of the suffrage. I hope some
great and good measure may be passed at an early period. I am very

truly yours.

"John Bright.

"George J. Abbott, Esq., United States Consul, Sheffield."

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. 1 27

The bill as drawn by Mr. Garfield, and as it became a law, is as
follows : —

" An Act to establish a Department of Education.

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled^ That there shall be established,
at the city of Washington, a Department of Education, for the purpose
of collecting such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and pro-
gress of education in the several States and Territories, and of diffusing
such information respecting the organization and management of schools
and school systems, and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people
of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient
, school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout
the country.

" Sec. 2. And be it further enacted y That there shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Com-
missioner of Education, who shall be intrusted with the management of
the Department herein established, and who shall receive a salary of four
thousand dollars per annum, and who shall have authority to appoint one
chief clerk of his Department, who shall receive a salary of two thousand
dollars per annum, one clerk who shall receive a salary of eighteen
hundred dollars per annum, and one clerk who shall receive a salary of
sixteen hundred dollars per annum, which said clerks shall be subject to
the appointing and removing power of the Commissioner of Education.

" Sec. 3. And be it further enacted^ That it shall be the duty of the
Commissioner of Education to present annually to Congress a report
embod}ing the results of his investigations and labors, together with a
statement of such facts and recommendations as will, in his judgment,
subserve the purpose for which this Department is established. In the
first report made by the Commissioner of TLducation under this act,
there shall be presented a statement of the several grants of land made by
Congress to promote education, and the manner in which these several
trusts have been managed, the amount of funds arising therefrom, and
the annual proceeds of the same, as far as the same can be determined.

" Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That the Commissioner of Public
Buildings is hereby authorized and directed to furnish proper offices for
the use of the Department herein established.'*

MR. SPEAKER, — I did intend to make a somewhat elabo-
rate statement of the reasons why the select committee
recommend the passage of this bill ; but I know the anxiety
that many gentlemen feel to have the debate concluded, to

1 28 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

allow the private bills now on the calendar, and set for to-
day, to be disposed of, and to complete as soon as possible
the work oif this session. I will therefore abandon my original
purpose, and restrict myself to a brief statement of a few
leading points in the argument, and leave the decision with
the House. I hope this waiving of a full discussion of the bill
will not be construed into a confession that it is inferior in
importance to any measure before the House; for I know of
none that has a nobler object, or that more vitally affects the
future -of this nation.

I first ask the House to consider the magnitude of the
interests involved in the bill. The very attempt •to discover '
the amount of pecuniary and personal interest we have in our
schools shows the necessity of such a law as is here proposed.
I have searched in vain for any complete or reliable statistics
showing the educational condition of the whole country. The
estimates that I have made are gathered from various sources^
and can be only approximately correct. I am satisfied, how-
ever, that they are far below the truth.

Even from the incomplete and imperfect educational sta-
tistics of the Census Bureau, it appears that in i860 there
were in the United States 115,224 common schools, 500,000
school officers, 150,241 teachers, and 5,477,037 scholars; thus
showing that more than 6,000,000 of the people of the United
States are directly engaged in the work of education. Not
only has this large proportion of our population been thus
engaged, but the Congress of the United States has given
53,000,000 acres of public lands to fourteen States and Ter-
ritories of the Union for the support of schools. In the old
ordinance of 1785, it was provided that one section of every
township — one thirty-sixth of all the public lands of the
United States — should be set apart, and held forever sacred
to the support of the schools of the country. In the ordinance
of 1787, it was declared that, "religion, morality, and knowl-
edge being necessary to good government and the happiness
of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever
be encouraged." It is estimated that at least $50,000,000
has been given in the United States by private individuals
for the support of schools. We have thus an interest, even
pecuniarily considered, hardly second to any other. We have
school statistics tolerably complete from only seventeen States

THE NA T TONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. 1 29

of the Union. Our Congressional library contains no edu-
cational reports whatever from the remaining nineteen. In
those seventeen States, there are 90,835 schools, 129,000 teach-
ers, 5,107,285 pupils; and $34,000,000 is annually appropri-
ated by the legislatures for the support and maintenance of
common schools. Notwithstanding the great expenditures en-
tailed upon them during four years of war, they raised by
taxation $34,000,000 annually for the support of public edu-
cation. In several States of the Union, more than fifty per
cent of all the tax imposed for State purposes is for the sup-
port of the public schools. And yet gentlemen are impatient
because we wish to occupy a short time in considering this
bill.

I will not trouble the House by repeating such commonplaces,
so familiar to every gentleman here, as that our system of govern-
ment is based upon the intelligence of the people. But I wish
to suggest that there never has been a time when all our educa-
tional forces should be in such perfect activity as at the present
day. Ignorance — stolid ignorance — is not our most dangerous
enemy. There is very little of that kind of ignorance among the
white population of this country. In the Old World, among
the despotic governments of Europe, the great disfranchised
class — the pariahs of political and social life — are indeed
ignorant, mere inert masses, moved and controlled by the intel-
ligent and cultivated aristocracy. Any unrepresented and hope-
lessly disfranchised class in a government will inevitably be
struck with intellectual paralysis. Our late slaves afford a sad
illustration. But among the represented and voting classes of
this country, where all are equal before the law, and every man
is a political power for good or evil, there is but little of the
inertia of ignorance. The alternatives are not education or no
education ; but shall the power of the citizen be directed aright
towards industry, liberty, and patriotism? or, under the baneful
influence of false theories and evil influences, shall it lead him
continually downward, and work out anarchy and ruin, both to
him and the government? If he is not educated in the school
of virtue and integrity, he will be educated in the school of vice
and iniquity. We are, therefore, afloat on the sweeping current:
we must make head against it, or we shall go down with it to
the saddest of destinies. According to the census of i860,
there were 1,218,311 inhabitants of the United States over

VOL. L 9

1 30 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

twenty-one years of age who could not read or write; and
871,418 of these were American-born citizens. One third of a
million of people are being annually thrown upon our shores
from the Old World, a large per cent of whom are uneducated ;
and the gloomy total has been swelled by the four million slaves
admitted to citizenship by the events of the war.

Such, sir, is the immense force which we must now confront
by the genius of our institutions and the light of our civiliza-
tion. How shall it be done? An American citizen can give
but one answer. We must pour upon them all the light of our
public schools. We must make them intelligent, industrious,
patriotic citizens, or they will drag us and our children down to
their level. Does not this question rise to the full height of
national importance, and demand the best efforts of statesman-
ship to adjust it?

Horace Mann has well said, —

" Legislators and rulers are responsible. In our country and in our
times no man is worthy the honored name of a statesman who does not
include the highest practicable education of the people in all his plans
of administration. He may have eloquence, he may have a knowledge
of all history, diplomacy, jurispmdence, and by these he may claim, in
other countries, the elevated rank of a statesman ; but unless he speaks,
plans, labors, at all times and in all places, for the culture and edification
of the whole people, he is not, he cannot be, an American statesman." ^

Gentlemen who have discussed the bill this morning tell us
that it will result in great expense to the government. Whether
an enterprise is expensive or not is altogether a relative ques-
tion, to be determined by the importance of the object in view.

Now, what have we done as a nation in the way of expenses?
In 1832 we organized a Coast Survey Bureau, and have ex-
pended millions upon it. Its officers have triangulated thou-
sands of miles of our coasts, have made soundings of all our
bays and harbors, and carefully mapped the shoals, breakers,
and coast-lines from our northern boundary on the Atlantic to
the extreme northern boundary on the Pacific coast. They
have established eight hundred tidal stations to observe the fluc-
tuations of the tides. We have expended vast sums in order
perfectly to know the topography of our coasts, lakes, and rivers,
that we might make navigation more safe. Is it of no conse-
quence that we explore the boundaries of that wonderful intel-

> Life and Works, Vol. II. p. 1S8 (Cambridge, 1867).

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION. \ 3 1

lectual empire which encloses within its domain the fate of
succeeding generations and of this republic? The children of
to-day will be the architects of our country's destiny in 1900.

We have established an Astronomical Observatory, where
the movements of the stars are watched, latitude and longitude
calculated, and chronometers regulated for the benefit of navi-
gation. For this observatory we pay one third of a million per
annum. Is it of no consequence that you observe the move-
ments of those stars which shall, in the time to come, be guid-
ing 3tars in our national firmament?

We have established a Light-House Board that is employing
all the aids of science to discover the best modes of regulating
the beacons upon our shores : it is placing buoys as way-marks
to guide ships safely into our harbors. Will you not create a
light-house board to set up beacons for the coming genera-
tion, not as lights to the eye, but to the mind and heart, that
shall guide them safely in the perilous voyage of life, and enable
them to transmit the blessings of liberty to those who shall
come after them ?

We have set on foot a score of expeditions to explore the
mountains and valleys, the lakes and rivers, of this and other
countries. We have expended money without stint to explore
the Amazon and the Jordan, Chili and Japan, the gold shores
of Colorado and the copper cliffs of Lake Superior, to gather
and publish the great facts of science, and to exhibit the
material resources of physical nature. Will you refuse the
pitiful sum of $13,000 to collect and record the intellectual
resources of this country, the elements that lie behind all
material wealth, and make it either a curse or a blessing?

We have paid three quarters of a million dollars for the sur-
vey of the route for the Pacific Railroad, and have published
the results, at a great cost, in thirteen quarto volumes, with
accompanying maps and charts. The money for these pur-
poses was freely expended. And now, when it is proposed to
appropriate $13,000 to aid in increasing the intelligence of
those who will use that great continental highway when it is
completed, we are reminded of our debts, and warned against
increasing our expenditures. It is difficult to treat such an
objection with the respect that is always due in this hall of
legislation.

We have established a Patent- Office, where are annually

1 3 2 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

accumulated thousands of models of new machines invented
by our people. Will you make no expenditure for the benefit
of the intelligence that shall stand behind those machines, and
be their controller? Will you bestow all your favors upon the
engine and ignore the engineer? I will not insult the intelli-
gence of this House by waiting to prove that money paid for
education is the most economical of all expenditures ; that it is
cheaper to prevent crime than to build jails ; that schoolhouses
are less expensive than rebellions. A tenth of our national
debt expended in public education fifty years ago would . have
saved us the blood and treasure of the late war. A far less sum
may save our children from a still greater calamity.

We expend hundreds of thousands annually to promote the
agricultural interests of the country, — to introduce the best
methods in all that pertains to husbandry. Is it not of more
consequence to do something for the farmer of the future than
for the farm of to-day? As man is more precious than soil, as
the immortal spirit is nobler than the clod it animates, so is the
object of this bill more important than any mere pecuniary
interest.

The genius of our government does not allow us to establish
a compulsory system of education, as is done in some of the
countries of Europe. There are States in this Union, however,
which have adopted a compulsory system; and perhaps that
is well. It is for each State to determine. A distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island told me lately, that it is now the
law in that State that every child within its bordefs shall attend
school, and that every vagrant child shall be taken in charge by
the authorities, and sent to school. It may be well for other
States to pursue the same course; but probably the general
government can do nothing of the sort. Whether it has the
right of compulsory control or not, we propose none in this
bill. But we do propose to use that power, so effective in this
country, of letting in light on subjects, and holding them up
to the verdict of public opinion. If it could be published
annually from this Capitol, through every school district of the
United States, that there are States in the Union that have no
system of common schools, — and if their records could be
placed beside the records of such States as Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States that have a com-
mon-school system, — the mere statement of the fact would

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 133

rouse their energies, and compel them for shame to educate
their children. It would shame all the delinquent States out of
their delinquency.

Mr. Speaker, if I were called upon to-day to point to that in
my own State of which I am most proud, I would not point to
any of the flaming lines of her military record, to the heroic
men and the brilliant officers she gave to this contest ; I would
not point to any of her leading men of the past or the present :
but I would point to her common schools; I would point to the
honorable fact, that in the great struggle of five years, through
which we have just passed, she has expended $12,000,000 for
the support of her public schools. I do not include in that
amount the sums expended upon our higher institutions of learn-
ing. I would point to the fact, that fifty-two per cent of the
taxation of Ohio for the last five years, aside from the war-tax
and the tax for the payment of her public debt, has been for
the support of her schools. I would point to the schools of
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, and other cities of the State, if I
desired a stranger to see the glory of Ohio. I would point to
the 13,000 schoolhouses and the 700,000 pupils in the schools of
Ohio. I would point to the $3,000,000 she has paid for schools
during the last year alone. This, in my judgment, is the proper
gauge by which to measure the progress and glory of States.

Gentlemen tell us there is no need of this bill ; the States are
doing well enough now. Do they know through what a strug-
gle every State has come up that has secured a good system
of common schools? Let me illustrate this by one example.

Notwithstanding the early declaration of William Penn, •*That
which makes a good constitution must keep it, namely, men of
wisdom and virtue, — qualities that, because they descend not
with worldly inheritance, must be carefully propagated by a vir-
tuous education of youth, for which spare no cost, for by such
parsimony all that is saved is lost " ; notwithstanding that wise
master-builder incorporated this sentiment in his "framework of
government," and made it the duty of the Governor and Council
"to establish and support public schools"; notwithstanding
Benjamin Franklin, from the first hour he became a citizen of
Pennsylvania, inculcated the value of useful knowledge to every
human being in every walk of life, and by his personal and pe-
cuniary effort did establish schools and a college for Philadel-
phia; notwithstanding the Constitution of Pennsylvania made it

1 34 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

obligatory upon the legislature to foster the education of the
citizens: notwithstanding all this, it was not till 1833-34 that a
system of common schools, supported in part by taxation of the
property of the State, for the common benefit of all the chil-
dren of the State, was established by law ; and although the law
was passed by an almost unanimous vote of both branches of
the legislature, so foreign was the idea of public schools to the
habits of the people, so odious was the idea of taxation for this
purpose, that even the poor who were to be specially benefited
were so deluded by political demagogues as to clamor for its
repeal. Many members who voted for the law lost their nom-
inations; and others, although nominated, lost their elections.
Some were weak enough to pledge themselves to a repeal of the
law; and in the session of 1835 there was an almost certain
prospect of its repeal, and the adoption in its place of an
odious and limited provision for educating the children of the
poor by themselves. In the darkest hour of the debate, when
the hearts of the original friends of the system were failing
from fear, there rose on the floor of the House one of its early
champions ; one who, though not a native of the State, felt like
a knife in his bosom the disgrace which the repeal of this law
would inflict; one who, though no kith or kin of his would be
benefited by the operations of the system, and who, though he
would share its burdens, would only partake with every citizen
in its blessings; one who voted for the original law although
introduced by his political opponents, and who had defended
and gloried in his vote before an angry and unwilling constit-
uency: this man, then in the beginning of his public career,
threw himself into the conflict, and by his earnest and brave
eloquence saved the law, and gave a noble system of common
schools to Pennsylvania. I doubt if at this hour, after the
thirty years crowded full of successful labors at the bar, before
the people, and in halls of legislation, the venerable and dis-
tinguished member, who now represents a portion of the same
State in this House,^ can recall any other speech of his life
with half the pleasure he does that one ; for no measure with
which his name has been connected is so fraught with bless-
ings to hundreds of thousands of children, and to homes in-
numerable. I hold in my hand a copy of his brave speech,
and I ask the clerk to read the passages that I have marked.

* Mr. Stevens.

THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION, 1 3 5

" I am comparatively a stranger among you, bom in another, in a dis-
tant State : no parent or kindred of mine did, does, or probably ever will
dwell within your borders. I have none of those strong cords to bind
me to your honor and your interest ; yet, if there is any one thing on
earth which I ardently desire above all others, it is to see Pennsylvania
standing up in her intellectual, as she confessedly does in her physical
resources, high above all her confederate rivals. How shameful, then,
would it be for these her native sons to feel less so, when the dust of their
ancestors is mingled with her soil, their friends and relatives enjoy her
present prosperity, and their descendants, for long ages to come, will par-
take of her happiness or misery, her glory or her infamy ! . . . .

" In giving this law to posterity you act the part of the philanthropist,
by bestowing upon the poor, as well as the rich, the greatest earthly boon
which they are capable of receiving ; you act the part of the philosopher,
by pointing, if you do not lead them, up the hill of science ; you act the
part of the hero, if it be true, as you say, that popular vengeance follows
dose upon your footsteps. Here, then, if you wish true popularity, is a
theatre on which you may acquire it

" Let all, therefore, who would sustain the character of the philosopher
or philanthropist, sustain this law. Those who would add thereto the
glory of the hero can acquire it here ; for, in the present state of feeling
in Pennsylvania, I am willing to admit that but littie less dangerous to
the public man is the war-club and battle-axe of savage ignorance than
to the lion-hearted Richard was the keen cimeter of the Saracen. He
who would oppose it, either through inability to comprehend the advan-
tages of general education, or from unwillingness to bestow them on all
his fellow-citizens, even to the lowest and the poorest, or from dread of
popular vengeance, seems to me to want either the head of the philoso-
pher, the heart of the philanthropist, or the nerve of the hero."

He has lived long enough to see this law, which he helped to
found in 1834, and more than any other man was instrumental
in saving from repeal in 1835, expanded and consolidated into
a noble system of public instruction. Twelve thousand schools
have been built by the voluntary taxation of the people, at a
cost, for schoolhouses alone, of nearly $10,000,000. Many mil-
lions of children have been educated in these schools. More
than seven hundred thousand attended the public schools of
Pennsylvania in 1864-65; and their annual cost, provided by
voluntary taxation in the year 1864, was nearly $3,000,000,
giving employment to sixteen thousand teachers. It is glory
enough for one man to have connected his name so honorably
with the original establishment and effective defence of such a
system.

1 36 THE NA TIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION.

But it is said that the thirst for knowledge among the young,
and the pride and ambition of parents for their children, are
agencies powerful enough to establish and maintain thorough
and comprehensive systems of education. This suggestion is
answered by the unanimous voice of publicists and political
economists. They all admit that the doctrine of " demand and
supply '* does not apply to educational wants. Even the most
extreme advocates of the principle of laissez faire, as a sound
maxim of political philosophy, admit that governments must
interfere in aid of education. We must not wait for the wants
of the rising generation to be expressed in a demand for means
of education. We must ourselves discover or supply their needs
before the time for supplying them has forever passed. John
Stuart Mill says: —

" But there are other things, of the worth of which the demand of the
market is by no means a test ; things of which the utility does not consist
in ministering to inclinations, nor in serving the daily uses of life, and
the want of which is least felt where the need is greatest. This is pecu-
liarly true of those things which are chiefly useful as tending to raise the
character of human beings. The uncultivated cannot be competent
judges of cultivation.

" Those who most need to be made wiser and better usually desire it
least, and, if they desired it, would be incapable of finding the way to it
by their own lights. It will continually happen, on the voluntary system,
that, the end not being desired, the means will not be provided at all, or
that, the persons requiring improvement having an imperfect or alto-
gether erroneous conception of what they want, the supply called forth
by the demand of the market will be anything but what is really required.
Now, any well-intentioned and tolerably civilized government may tliink,
without presumption, that it does, or ought to, possess a degree of culti-
vation above the average of the community which it rules, and that it
should therefore be capable of offering better education and better in-
struction to the people than the greater number of them would sponta-
neously select.

*' Education, therefore, is one of those things which it is admissible in
principle that a government should provide for the people. The case is
one to which the reasons of the non-interference principle do not neces-
sarily or universally extend.

" With regard to elementary education, the exception to ordinary niles
may, I conceive, justifiably be carried still further. There are certain
primary elements and means of knowledge which it is in the highest de-
gree desirable that all human beings bom into the community should

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 137

acquire during childhood. If their parents, or those on whom they de-
pend, have the power of obtaining for them this instruction, and fail to
do it, they commit a double breach of duty, — toward the children them-
selves, and toward the members of the community generally, who are all
liable to suffer seriously from the consequences of ignorance and want of
education in their fellow-citizens. It is, therefore, an allowable exercise
of the powers of a government to impose on parents the legal obligation
of giving elementary instruction to children. This, however, cannot
fairly be done without taking measures to insure that such instruction
shall be always accessible to them, either gratuitously or at a trifling
expense." *

This is the testimony of economic science. I trust the states-
men of this Congress will not think the subject of education too
humble a theme for their most serious consideration. It has en-
gaged the earnest attention of the best men of ancient and mod-
ern times, especially of modern statesmen and philanthropists.

I shall fortify the positions that I have taken by quoting the
authority of a few men who are justly regarded as teachers
of the human race. If I keep in their company, I cannot wan-
der far from the truth. I cannot greatly err while I am guided
by their counsel.

In his eloquent essay entitled "The Ready and Easy Way
to Establish a Free Commonwealth," John Milton said: **To
make the people fittest to choose, and the chosen fittest to gov-
ern, will be to mend our corrupt and faulty education, to teach
the people faith, not without virtue, temperance, modesty, so-
briety, economy, justice; not to admire wealth or honor; to
hate turbulence and ambition ; to place every one his private
welfare and happiness in the public peace, liberty and safety." ^

England's most venerable living statesman. Lord Brougham,
enforced the same truth in these noble words : —

** Lawgivers of England ! I charge ye have a care ! Be well assured
that the contempt lavished for centuries upon the cabals of Constantino-
ple, where the council disputed on a text while the enemy, the derider of
all their texts, was thundering at the gate, will be as a token of respect
compared with the loud shout of universal scorn which all mankind in
all ages will send up against you if you stand still and suffer a far dead-
lier foe than the Turcoman, — suffer the parent of all evil, all falsehood,
all hypocrisy, all discharity, all self-seeking, — him who covers over with

^ Political Economy, Book V. Chap. XI. Sec. 8 (Boston, 1848).

2 Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. II. p. 183 (Philadelphia, 1851).

138 THE NATIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCATION

pretexts of conscience the pitfalls that he digs for the souls on which he
preys, — to stalk about the fold, and lay waste its inmates, — stand still
and make no head against him, upon the vain pretext, to soothe your in-
dolence, that your action is obstructed by religious cabals, — upon the
far more guilty speculation that by playing a party game, you can turn
the hatred of conflicting professors to your selfish purposes 1 " ^

" Let the soldier be abroad if he will ; he can do nothing in this age.
There is another personage abroad, a person less imposing, — in the eye
of some, insignificant. The schoolmaster is abroad ; and I trust to him,
armed with his primer, against the soldier in full uniform array." ^

Lord Brougham gloried in the title of schoolmaster, and con-
trasted his work with that of the military conqueror in these
words : —

" The conqueror stalks onward with ' the pride, pomp, and circum-
stance of war,' banners flying, shouts rending the air, guns thundering,
and martial music pealing, to drown the shrieks of the wounded and the
lamentations for the slain. Not thus the schoolmaster in his peaceful
vocation. He meditates and prepares in secret the plans which are to
bless mankind ; he slowly gathers around him those who are to further
their execution ; he quietly though firmly advances in his humble path,
laboring steadily but calmly, till he has opened to the light all the recesses
of ignorance, and torn up by the roots the weeds of vice. His is a
progress not to be compared with anything like a march ; but it leads to
a far more brilliant triumph, and to laurels more imperishable than the
destroyer of his species, the scourge of the world, ever won." 3

The learned and brilliant Guizot, who regarded his work in
the office of Minister of Public Instruction, in the government
of France, the noblest and most valuable work of his life, has
left us this valuable testimony : " Universal education is hence-
forth one of the guaranties of liberty and social stability. As
every principle of our government is founded on justice and
reason, to diffuse education among the people, to develop their
understandings and enlighten their minds, is to strengthen their
constitutional government, and secure its stability."

In his Farewell Address, Washington wrote these words of
wise counsel : ** Promote then, as an object of primary impor-
tance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In
proportion as the structure of a government gives force to

1 I-«tter on " National Education," to the Duke of Bedford, Sept. 6, 1839.

2 Speech in the House of Commons, January 29, 1828.
' Address at Liverpool Mechanics' Institute, July, 1835.

THE NATIONAL B UREA U OF ED UCA TION 1 39

public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be en-
lightened."

The elder Adams said : ** The wisdom and generosity of the
legislature, in making liberal appropriations in money for the
benefit of schools, academies, and colleges, is an equal honor
to them and to their constituents, a proof of their venera-
tion for letters and science, and a portent of great and lasting
good to North and South America and to the world. Great is
truth, — great is liberty, — great is humanity, — and they must
and will prevail."

Chancellor Kent used this decided language: "The parent
who sends his son into the world uneducated, and without skill
in any art or science, does a great injury to mankind as well as
to his own family, for he defrauds the community of a useful
citizen, and bequeaths to it a nuisance." ^

I shall conclude the citation of opinions with these stirring
words of Edward Everett : —

" I know not to what else we can better liken the strong appetence
of the mind for improvement, than to a hunger and tliirst after knowledge
and truth ; nor how we can better describe the province of education,
than to say it does that for the intellect which is done for the body, when
it receives the care and nourishment which are necessary for its growth
and strength. From this comparison, I think I derive new views of the
importance of education. It is now a solemn duty, a tender, sacred
trust. What, sir ! feed a child's body, and let his soul hunger ! pamper
his limbs, and starve his faculties ! Plant the earth, cover a thousand
hills with your droves of cattle, pursue the fish to their hiding-places in
the sea, and spread out your wheat-fields across the plains, in order to
supply the wants of that body which will soon be as cold and senseless
as their poorest clod, and let the pure spiritual essence within you, with
all its glorious capacities for improvement, languish and pine ! What !
build factories, tum in rivers upon the water-wheels, unchain the impris-
oned spirits of steam, to weave a garment for the body, and let the soul
remain unadorned and naked ! What ! send out your vessels to the
farthest ocean, and make battle with the monsters of the deep, in order
to obtain the means of lighting up your dwellings and workshops, and
prolonging the hours of labor for the meat that perisheth, and permit
that vital spark which God has kindled, which he has intrusted to our
care, to be fanned into a bright and heavenly flame, — permit it, I say,
to kmguish and go out ! " ^

* Commentaries, etc., Lecture XXIX.

2 Orations and Speeches on various Occasions, Vol. II. pp. 277, 278 (Boston,
1856).

I40 THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION

It is remarkable that so many good things have been said,
and so few things done, by our national statesmen, in favor of
education. If we inquire what has been done by the govern-
ments of other countries to support and advance public edu-
cation, we are compelled to confess with shame that ever>'
government in Christendom has given a ♦more intelligent and
effective support to schools than has our own.

The free cities of Germany organized the earliest school
systems after the separation of Church and State. The present
schools of Hamburg have existed more than one thousand
years. The earliest school codes were framed in the duchy
of Wiirtemberg in 1565, and in the electorate of Saxony in
1580. Under these codes were established systems of schools
more perfect, it is claimed, than the school system of any State
of the American Union. Their systems embraced the gym-
nasium and the university, and were designed, as their laws
expressed it, " to carry youth from the elements to the degree
of culture demanded for offices in Church and State."

The educational institutions of Prussia are too well known to
need a comment. It is a sufficient index of their progress and
high character, that a late Prussian school officer said of his
official duties: '* I promised God that I would look upon every
Prussian peasant child as a being who could complain of me
before God if I did not provide for him the best education as
a man and a Christian which it was possible for me to provide."

France did not think herself dishonored by learning from a
nation which she had lately conquered; and when, in 1831, she
began to provide more fully for the education of her people,
she sent the philosopher Cousin to Holland and Prussia to
study and report upon the schools of those states. Guizot was
made Minister of Public Instruction, and held the office from
1832 to 1837. In 1833 the report of Cousin was published, and
the educational system of France was established on the Prus-
sian model. No portion of his brilliant career reflects more
honor upon Guizot than his five years' work for the schools of
France. The fruits of his labors were not lost in the revolu-
tions that followed. The present Emperor is giving his best
efforts to the perfection and maintenance of schools, and is
endeavoring to make the profession of the teacher more hon-
orable and desirable than it has been hitherto.

Through the courtesy of the Secretary of State I have ob-
tained a copy of the last annual report of the Minister of Public

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION 141

Instruction in France, which exhibits the present state of edu-
cation in that empire. At the last enumeration there were in
France, in the colleges and lyceums, 65,832 pupils; in the
secondary schools, 200,000; and in the primary, or common
schools, 4,720,234. Besides the large amount raised by local
taxation, the imperial government appropriated, during the
year 1865, 2,349.051 francs for the support of primary schools.
Teaching is one of the regular professions in France ; and the
government offers prizes, and bestows honors upon the success-
ful instructor of children. During the year 1865, 1,154 prizes
were distributed to teachers in primary schools. An order of
honor, and a medal worth two hundred and fifty francs, are
awarded to the best teacher in each commune. After long and
faithful service in his profession, the teacher is retired on half-
pay, and, if broken down in health, is pensioned for life. In
1865 there were 4,245 teachers on the pension list of France.
The Minister says in his report, "The statesmen of France have
determined to show that the country knows how to honor those
who serve her, even in obscurity.** Since 1862, 10,243 libraries
for the use of common schools have been established ; and they
now contain 1,117,352 volumes, more than a third of which
have been furnished by the imperial government. Half a mil-
lion text-books are furnished for the use of children who are too
poor to buy them. It is the policy of France to afford the
means of education to every child in the empire.

When we compare the conduct of other governments with
our own, we cannot accuse ourselves so much of illiberality as
of reckless folly in the application of our liberality to the
support of schools. No government has expended so much to
so little purpose. To fourteen States alone we have given for
the support of schools 83,000 square miles of land, or an
amount of territory nearly equal to two such States as Ohio.
But how has this bountiful appropriation been applied? This
chapter in our history has never been written. No member of
this House or the Senate, no executive officer of the govern-
ment, now knows, and no man ever did know, what disposition
has been made of this immense bounty. This bill requires
the Commissioner of Education to report to Congress what
lands have been given to schools, and how the proceeds have
been applied. If we arc not willing to follow the example of
our fathers in giving, let us, at least, have the evidence of the
beneficial results of their liberality.

142 THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION

Mr. Speaker, I have thus hurriedly and imperfectly ex-
hibited the magnitude of the interests involved in the education
of American youth; the peculiar condition of affairs which
demands at this time an increase of our educational forces ; the
failure of a majority of the States to establish school systems,
the long struggles through which others have passed in achiev-
ing success; and the humiliating contrast between the action
of our government and those of other nations in reference to
education : but I cannot close without referring to the bearing
of this measure upon the peculiar work of this Congress.

When the history of the Thirty-ninth Congress is written, it
will be recorded that two great ideas inspired it, and made their
impress upon all its efforts; namely, to build up free States
on the ruins of slavery, and to extend to every inhabitant of
the United States the rights and privileges of citizenship. Be-
fore the Divine Architect builded order out of chaos, he said,
" Let there be light." Shall we commit the fatal mistake of
building up free States, without first expelling the darkness in
which slavery had shrouded their people? Shall we enlarge
the boundaries of citizenship, and make no provision to in-
crease the intelligence of the citizen? I share most fully in
the aspirations of this Congress, and give my most cordial
support to its policy; but I believe its work will prove a
disastrous failure unless it makes the schoolmaster its ally,
and aids him in preparing the children of the United States to
perfect the work now begun.

The stork is a sacred bird in Holland, and is protected by
her laws, because it destroys those animals which would under-
mine the dikes, and let the sea again overwhelm the rich fields
of the Netherlands. Shall this government do nothing to fos-
ter and strengthen those educational agencies which alone can
shield the coming generations from ignorance and vice, and
make it the impregnable bulwark of liberty and law?

I know that this is not a measure which is likely to attract
the attention of those whose chief work it is to watch the politi-
cal movements that affect the results of nominating conven-
tions and elections. The mere politician will see in it nothing
valuable, for the millions of children to be benefited by it can
give him no votes. But I appeal to those who care more for
the future safety and glory of this nation than for any mere
temporary advantage, to aid in giving to education the public
recognition and active support of the Federal government.

THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY

COMMISSIONS.

ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES IN EX PARTE L. P. MILLIGAN,

W. A. BOWLES, AND STEPHEN HORSEY.

March 6, i866i

The efforts made by the government to suppress the Southern Rebel-
lion early encountered serious opposition in some of the loyal, and even
in Northern States. The nature and the extent of this opposition fills
lai^e space in the history of the time. Sometimes it went as far as the
charges made against the petitioners in the cases argued by Mr. Garfield
in this speech; but in a far greater number of instances the opposi-
tion fen short of the crimes therein charged. Unpatriotic and dis-
loyal practices became so numerous, were carried to such an extent, so
weakened the government, and so disturbed the public peace, that the
national authorities felt compelled to deal with their perpetrators. In
that day of excitement, stress, and violence, the authorities sometimes^
proceeded to extremities. Commonly these extremer measures were taken
by the military commanders in the several military districts. The slow-
going processes of the civil courts, it was held, were insufficient to
punish, and so to prevent treason. Hence martial law sometimes took
the place of civil law, and military commissions the place of civil courts.
The MilUgan, Bowles, and Horsey cases originated in an attempt to sup-
press alleged treason. Their history, to the time when they appeared in
the Supreme Court at Washington, is given by Mr. Garfield in the first
paragraphs of his speech, and the facts need not be here recited. The
question of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners, Milligan, Bowles,
and Horsey, was not in issue before the court, but solely the question
of the legality of their trial and condemnation by a military commission.
More specifically it was this : Shall a writ of habeas corpus issue, taking
the prisoners out of the custody of the military authorities? The peti-
tion of the prisoners was granted. This is the order of the court, as an-
nounced by Chief Justice Chase ; the decision was given the next term.

" I. That on the facts, as stated in said petition and exhibits, a writ of
habeas corpus ought to be issued, according to the prayer of said
petition.

144 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

" II. That on the facts stated in the said petition and exhibits, the
said Lambdin P. Milligan ought to be discharged from custody as in said
petition is prayed, and according to the act of Congress, passed 3d
March, 1863, entitled, ' An Act relating to Habeas Corpus ^ and regulating
Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases.'

"III. That, on the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, the mili-
tary commission mentioned therein had no jurisdiction legally to try and
sentence said Lambdin P. Milligan in the manner and form as in said
petition and exhibits are stated.

" And it is therefore now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that
it be so certified to the said Circuit Court.*'

This was Mr. Garfield's first appearance in the Supreme Court of the
United States. He was associated with Hon. J. E. McDonald, Hon.
J. S. Black, and Hon. D. D. Field. The United States was represented
by Hon. James Speed, Attorney- General, Hon. B. F. Buder, and Hon.
Henry Stanberry.

Mr. Garfield's appearance in these cases subjected him to severe crit-
icism in Ohio, and especially in his own district. His appearance was
held, by those thus criticising, inconsistent with his political and public
character. The criticism was sharpened by the popular feeling that the
prisoners were guilty of the crimes charged. Replying at Warren, Ohio,
September 19, 1874, to certain attacks upon his public character, Mr.
Garfield thus referred to his connection with these cases : —

"Just about that time there had been in Congress a very considerable
discussion concerning the arbitrary conduct of some of our officers in
carrying, in civil communities, the military jurisdiction and rule further
than they were warranted by the Constitution, and I had taken strong
grounds in Congress against the exercise of military power in States not
in rebellion. It being generally known that I had resisted what some of
the more extreme of our own party thought the military authorities might
safely do, I was asked if I would be willing to argue the case of Bowles
and Milligan before the Supreme Court. I answered, * If the case turns
on the justice of those men being punished, I will not defend them in
any way whatever, for I believe they deserve the severest punishment ;
but if it turns on the question as to who has the power to try those
men, I will. I believe that there is no authority under the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States to take a citizen of Indiana not a
soldier and import a military tribunal to his home to try him and pun-
ish him.' So important did I regard this principle to the future of this
country in that exciting time, that, with my eyes open to the fact that I
took a ver)' great political risk in defending, not Bowles and Milligan, but
the right of every citizen in a civil community where war is not raging to
be tried by the courts of the country and before juries of his own land,
and not to be dragged away outside of his owti doors to be tried by a

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 145

military organization brought from a distance, I made the argument now
complained of- I believed that, having put down the Rebellion, having
saved civil liberty in this country against cruel invasion, we ought also to
save it from our own recklessness.

" I happen to have with me a copy of the argument that I made before
the Supreme Court in the year 1866; and I desire to say that I felt,
when I made that argument, that I was doing as worthy a thing as
I had ever done, and I look back upon it to-night with as much sin-
cere pride and satisfaction as upon any act of my public life. I
ought to add, that I have never even seen Bowles or Milligan. I knew
that they were poor, and probably could not pay for their defence. I
was never promised and never received any compensation for it. I paid
the expense of printing my own brief and argument. I never received
any compensation for it; I did it in defence of what I believe to
be a most vital and important principle, not only to the Republican
party, but to the nation ; namely, that in no part of our civil commu-
nity must the military be exalted above the civil authority, and that
those men, however unworthy, however guilty, and however disloyal to
their country, should not be tried by any but a lawful, civil tribunal.
Congress had provided laws for trying every crime that those men were
charged with, and for trying it by a civil court. Now, I believe that all
over this land one of the great landmarks of civilization and civil liberty
is the self-restraining power of the American people, curbing themselves
and governing themselves by the limit of the civil law. I remind you of
the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously sustained the position I
took in that argument. There were some differences as to the reasoning
by which the court reached the result ; but the ruling of the court was
unanimous, that the trial had been unauthorized by law, and that the men
must therefore be released. That did not release them, however, from
the right of the government to try them in the civil courts for the crimes
with which they were charged. A note that was handed to me at the
door called upon me to explain how it was that I, a Republican and a
Representative, gave my voice and whatever ability I possessed as a
lawyer to save Rebel conspirators from punishment. My answer was,
* Hang them if guilty, but hang them according to law ; if you hang
them otherwise, you commit murder.' "

** Nullus liber homo capiatur, vcl imprisonctur, aut dissaisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exulctur,
aut aliquo modo dcstruatur, nee super eum ibimus, nee super eum mittemus, nisi per legale
judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terra;." — Magna Carta^ Cap. XXXIX.

MAY IT PLEASE THE CoURT, — In the months of Septem-
ber and October, 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan, William

A. Bowles, and Stephen Horsey, natives of the United States
VOL I. 10

146 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

and citizens of the State of Indiana, were arrested by order of
Alvin P. Hovey, Major-General commanding the military dis-
trict of Indiana, and on the 2ist of the latter month were
placed on trial before a military commission convened at Indi-
anapolis, by order of General Hovey, on the following charges,
preferred by Major Henry L. Burnett, Judge Advocate of the
Northwestern Military Department, viz. : —

1. "Conspiracy against the government of the United States."

2. " Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the govern-
ment of the United States."

3. " Inciting insurrection."

4. ** Disloyal practices."

5. "Violations of the laws of war."

The Commission, overruling the objection of the accused
against its authority to try them, proceeded with the trial, pro-
nounced them guilty, and sentenced them to death by hanging.
The sentence was approved on the 2d of May, 1865 ; but before
the day fixed for its execution, the President of the United
States commuted it to imprisonment for life, and the prisoners
are now confined in the penitentiary of Ohio.

On the loth of the same month, they filed their petition in
the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of In-
diana, setting forth the above facts, and also declaring, that,
while the petitioners were held in military custody, and more
than twenty days after their arrest, a grand jury of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the District of Indiana was con-
vened at Indianapolis, the petitioners' place of confinement, and,
being duly impanelled, charged, and sworn for said district,
held its sittings, and finally adjourned, without having found
any bill of indictment, or made any presentment whatever
against them; that at no time had they been in the military
service of the United States, or in any way connected with the
land or naval force, or the militia in actual service; that they
had not been within the limits of any State whose citizens were
engaged in rebellion against the United States, at any time
during the war, but during all the time aforesaid, and for twenty
years last past, had been inhabitants, residents, and citizens of
Indiana. The petitioners* claim to be discharged from mili-
tary custody was founded upon the provisions of an act of Con-
gress of March 3, 1863, entitled "An Act relative to Habeas
Corpus, and regulating Judicial Proceedings in certain Cases."

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 147

On hearing the petition, the opinions of the judges of the Cir-
cuit Court were opposed, and they have certified to this court
for its decisioii the following questions, viz. : —

1. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought a
writ of habeas corpus to be issued, according to the prayer of
said petitioners?

2. On the facts stated in the petition and exhibits, ought the
petitioners to be discharged from custody, as in said petition
prayed ?

3. Whether, upon the facts stated in said petition and exhib-
its, the military Commission mentioned therein had jurisdiction
legally to try and sentence said petitioners in manner and form
as in said petition and exhibits is stated.

These preliminary proceedings have been so fully stated and
examined by the gentleman who opened the cause,^ that I need
not dwell upon them further.

I desire to say, in the outset, that the questions now before
this court have relation only to constitutional law, and involve
neither the guilt or the innocence of the relators, nor the mo-
tives and patriotism of the officers who tried and sentenced
them. I trust I need not say in this presence, that in my esti-
mation nothing in the calendar of infamy can be more abhor-
rent than the crimes with which the relators were charged;
nothing that more fully deserves the swift vengeance of the
law, and the execration of mankind. But the questions before
your Honors are not personal. They reach those deep foun-
dations of law on which the republic is built; and in their
proper settlement are involved the highest interests of every
citizen.

Had the military Commission jurisdiction legally to try and
sentence the petitioners? Upon the determination of this ques-
tion the whole cause rests. If the Commission had such juris-
diction, the petitioners are legally imprisoned, and should not
be discharged from custody ; nor should a writ of habeas corpus
be issued in answer to their prayer. If the military Commis-
sion had not jurisdiction, the trial was void, the sentence illegal,
•and should not be further executed.

As a first step toward reaching an answer to this question,
I affirm that every citizen of the United States is under the
dominion of law ; that, whether he be a civilian, a soldier, or a

1 Hon. J. E. McDonald.

148 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

sailor, the Constitution provides for him a tribunal before which
he may be protected if innocent, and punished if guilty of
crime. In the fifth article of the Amendments td the Constitu-
tion it is declared that —

" No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infa-
mous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when
in actual service in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use with-
out just compensation."

This sweeping provision covers every person under the juris-
diction of the Constitution. To the general rule of presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, there are three exceptions:
first, cases arising in the land forces ; second, cases arising in
the naval forces ; third, cases arising in the militia when in
actual service in time of war or public danger. All these
classes are covered by express provisions of the Constitution.
In whatever one of these situations an American citizen may
be placed, his rights are clearly defined, and a remedy is
provided against oppression and injustice. The Constitution
establishes the Supreme Court, and empowers Congress to con-
stitute tribunals inferior to that court; **to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and
to provide for governing such part of the militia as may be
employed in the service of the United States. No other tri-
bunal is authorized or recognized by the Constitution. No
other is established by the laws of Congress. For all cases
not arising in the land or naval forces. Congress has amply
provided in the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, and the
acts amendatory thereof. For all cases arising in the naval
forces, it has fully provided in the act of March 2, 1799, **for
the Government of the Navy of the United States," and in sim-
ilar subsequent acts.

But since the opposing counsel do not claim to find authority
for the tribunal before which the petitioners were tried in cither
of these categories, I shall proceed to examine, somewhat mi-
nutely, the limits and boundaries of the military department ;
the character of its tribunals ; the classes of persons who come

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 149

within its jurisdiction; and the defences which the law has
thrown around them.

We are apt to regard the military department of the govern-
ment as an organized despotism, in which all personal rights
are merged in the will of the commander-in-chief. But that
department has definitely marked boundaries, and all its mem-
bers are not only controlled, but also sacredly protected, by
definitely prescribed law. The first law of the Revolutionary
Congfress touching the organization of the army, passed Sep-
tember 20, 1776, provided that no officer or soldier should be
kept in arrest more than eight days without being furnished
with the written charges and specifications against him ; that he
should be tried, at as early a day as possible, by a regular mili-
tary court, whose proceedings were regulated by law, and that no
sentence should be carried into execution until the full record of
the trial had been submitted to Congress or to the commander-
in-chief, and his or their direction be signified thereon. From
year to year Congress has added new safeguards to protect the
rights of our soldiers, and the Rules and Articles of War are as
really a part of the laws of the land as the Judiciary Act or the
act establishing the Treasury Department. If the humblest pri-
vate soldier in the army be wronged by his commanding officer,
he may demand redress by sending the statement of his griev-
ance step by step through the appointed channels, till it reaches
the President or Congress, if justice be not done him sooner.

The main boundary line between the civil and military juris-
dictions is the muster into service. Before that act the citi-
zen is subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts ; after it,
until his muster out, he is subject to the military jurisdiction in
all matters of military duty. This line has been carefully sur-
veyed by the courts, and fixed as the lawful boundary. They
do not regard a citizen as coming under the jurisdiction of a
Federal court-martial, even when he has been ordered into the
military service by the Governor of his State, on requisition of
the President, until he reaches the place of general rendezvous,
and has been actually mustered into the service of the United
States. On this point I cite the case of Mills v, Martin.^ In
that case, a militiaman, called out by the Governor of the State
of New York, and ordered by him to enter the service of the
United States, on a requisition of the President for troops, re-

1 19 Johnson's N. Y. Reports, 6.

1 50 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

fused to obey the summons, and was tried by a Federal court-
martial for disobedience of orders. The Supreme Court of the
State of New York decided that, until he had gone to the place
of general rendezvous, and had been regularly enrolled, and
mustered into the national militia, he was not amenable to the
action of a court-martial composed of officers of the United
States. The judge, in giving his opinion, quoted the following
language of Mr. Justice Washington, of the Supreme Court of
the United States, in the case of Houston v, Moore : ** From
this brief summary of the laws, it would seem that actual service
was considered by Congress as the criterion of national militia ;
and that the service did not commence until the arrival of the
militia at the place of rendezvous. That is the termimis a quo
the service, the pay, and subjection to the articles of war, are
to commence and continue.*' ^

By the sixtieth Article of War, the military jurisdiction is so
extended as to cover those persons not mustered into the ser-
vice, but necessarily connected with the army. It provides that
" All sutlers and retainers to the camp, and all persons whatso-
ever serving with the armies of the United States in the field,
though not enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to orders, accord-
ing to the Rules and Articles of War." ^

That the question of jurisdiction might not be doubtful, it
was thought necessary to provide by law of Congress that spies
should be subject to trial by court-martial. As the law stood
for eighty-five years, spies were described as ** persons not citi-
zens of, or owning allegiance to, the United States, who shall be
found lurking," etc. Not until after the great Rebellion began
was this law so amended as to allow the punishment by court-
martial of citizens of the United States who should be found
lurking about the lines of our army to betray it to the enemy ;
for until then, be it said to the honor of our people, it had
never been thought possible that any American citizen would
become a spy, to aid the enemies of the Republic ; but in 1 862
the law was so amended that such a citizen, if found lurking
about the lines of the army as a spy, in time of war, should be
tried by a court-martial as though he were a spy of a foreign
nation.

It is evident, therefore, that by no loose and general construc-
tion of the law can citizens be held amenable to military tribu-

1 5 Wheat on, 20. " Army Regulations, 1 861.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 1

nals, whose jurisdiction extends only to persons mustered into
the military service, and such other classes of persons as are,
by express provisions of law, made subject to the rules and arti-
cles of war.

But even within their proper jurisdiction military courts are,
in many important particulars, subordinate to the civil courts.
This is acknowledged by the leading authorities on this subject.
I read from O'Brien's Military Law. After discussing the gen-
eral relations between the civil and military departments of the
government, he says : —

" From this admitted principle, it would seem a necessary consequence
that the Supreme Court of the United States has an inherent power over
all military tribunals, of precisely the same nature as that which it asserts
and exercises over inferior courts of civil judicature. Any mandatory
or prohibitory writ, therefore, emanating from the Supreme Court of the
United States, and addressed to a court-martial, would demand the most
unhesitating obedience on the part of the latter. Whether, in the ab-
sence of a special law to that effect, the same obedience is due to a writ
coming from a Circuit or District Court of the Union, and directed to
a court-martial assembled in the district or circuit, does not appear to be
so clear. A military tribunal would doubtless obey such a writ. As to
State courts, the case is very different. Military courts are entirely inde-
pendent of them. Their powers are derived from a distinct, separate, and
independent source. In regard to the courts of the United States, there

can be no question Each individual member of a court-martial

is also liable to the supreme courts of civil judicature, not only for any
abuse of power, but for any illegal proceedings of the court, if he has

voted for or participated in the same

" The authority of courts- martial is sometimes extended by executive
governments, subjecting, by proclamation, certain districts or countries
to the jurisdiction of martial law during the existence of a rebellion.
But in all such cases a court-martial ought to be fully assured that the
warrant or order under which they are assembled is strictly legal ; and that
the prisoners brought before them were actually apprehended in the par-
ticular district or country which may have been subjected to martial law,
and during the period that the proclamation was actually in force. Any
error in these particulars would render their whole proceedings illegal." *

In further vindication of my last proposition, I shall cite a
few precedents from English and American history.

I. A Lieutenant Fr>'e. serving in the West Indies in 1743 on
board the Oxford, a British man-of-war, was ordered by his

* Pages 222-226 (Philadelphia, 1846).

I S 2 MTLITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

I

superior officer to assist in arresting another officer and bringing
him on board the ship as a prisoner. The Lieutenant, doubting
the legality of the order, demanded — what he had, according to
the customs of the naval service, a right to demand — a written
order before he would obey the command. For this he was
put under arrest, tried by a naval court-martial, sentenced to
fifteen years' imprisonment, and forever debarred from serving
the King. He was sent to England to be imprisoned, but was
released by order of the Privy Council. In 1746 he brought
an action before a civil court against the president of the court-
martial, Sir Chaloner Ogle, and damages of ;^i,ooo were awarded
him for his illegal detention and sentence ; and the learned judge
informed him that he might also bring his action against any
member of the court-martial. Rear- Admiral Mayne and Captain
Rentone, who were members of the court that tried him, were,
at the time when damages were awarded to Lieutenant Frye, sit-
ting on a naval court-martial for the trial of Vice- Admiral Les-
tock. The Lieutenant proceeded against them, and they were
arrested upon a writ from the Court of Common Pleas. The
order of arrest was served upon them just as the court-martial
adjourned, one afternoon. Its members, fifteen in number, im-
mediately reassembled and passed resolutions declaring it a great
insult to the dignity of the naval service that any person, how-
ever high in civil authority, should order the arrest of a naval
officer for any of his official acts. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir
John Willes, immediately ordered the arrest of all the members
of the court who signed the resolutions, and they were arrested.
They appealed to the King, who was very indignant at the ar-
rest. The judge, however, persevered in his determination to
maintain the supremacy of the civil law, and after two months'
examination and investigation of the cause all the members of
the court-martial signed an humble and submissive letter of
apology, begging leave to withdraw their resolutions, in order
to put an end to further proceedings. When the Lord Chief
Justice had heard the letter read in open court, he directed that it
be recorded in the Remembrance Office, ** as a memorial to the
present and future ages, that whoever set themselves up in op-
position to the laws, or think themselves above the law, will in
the end find themselves mistaken." ^

1 See Mc Arthur on Courts-Martial, (London, 1806,) Vol. 1. pp. 229-232. See
also Ix)ndon Gazette for 1745-46, Library of Congress.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 3

2. I beg leave to cite the case of Wilson v, MacKenzie. This
court will remember the remarkable mutiny, in 1842, on board
the brig Somers, in which a son of the then Secretary of the
Treasury of the United States was tried by court-martial for
mutiny, and executed at the yard-arm. It was proved that a
mutiny of very threatening aspect had broken out, and that the
lives of the captain and his officers were threatened by the
mutineers. Among the persons arrested was the plaintiff, Wil-
son, an enlisted sailor, who, being supposed to be in the con-
spiracy, was knocked down by the captain, ironed, and held in
confinement for a number of days. When the cruise was ended,
Wilson brought suit against the captain for illegal arrest and
imprisonment. The cause was tried before the Supreme Court
of New York, and his Honor, Chief Justice Nelson, delivered
the opinion of the court. He says : —

" The material question presented in this case is, whether the com-
mon law courts have any jurisdiction of personal wrongs committed by a
superior officer of the navy upon a subordinate, while at sea, and engaged
in the public service Actions of trespass for injuries to the per-
son have been frequently brought and sustained in the common law
courts of England, against naval as well as military commanders, by their
subordinates, for acts done both at home and abroad, under pretence
and color of naval and military discipline. (See Wall v, McNamara, and
Swinton v. Molloy, stated in i T. R. 536, 537 ; also, Mostyn v. Fabrigas,
Cowp. 161 ; Warden v. Bailey, 4 Taunt. 67 ; 4 Maule & Selw. 400, S. C.)
.... There are are also many cases in the books where actions have
been sustained against members of courts-martial, naval and military, who
have exceeded their authority in the infliction of punishment. (See
4 Taunt. 70-75, and the cases there cited.) .... It was suggested on
the argument, by the counsel for the defendant, that, inasmuch as he
[\Vilson] was in the service of the United States when the acts com-
plained of were done, the courts of this State, as matter of comity and

policy, should decline to take jurisdiction I am of opinion that

the demurrer [to the suggestion] is well taken, and that the plaintiff
[Wilson] is entitled to judgment. Ordered accordingly." ^

3. As a clear and exhaustive statement of the relation be-
tween civil and military courts, I quote from an opinion of this
court in the case of Dynes v. Hoover^: —

" With the sentences of courts- martial which have been convened
regularly, and have proceeded legally, and by which punishments are
directed, not forbidden by law, or which are according to the laws and

1 7 HiU's N. Y. Supreme Court Reports, 97-100. ^ 20 Howard, 82, Sj.

1 54 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

customs of the sea, civil courts have nothing to do, nor are they in any
way alterable by them. If it were otherwise, the civil courts would vir-
tually administer the Rules and Articles of War, irrespective of those to
whom that duty and obligation has been confided by the laws of the
United States, from whose decisions no appeal or jurisdiction of any kind
has been given to the civil magistrate or civil courts. But we repeat, if
a court-martial has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the charge it
has been convened to try, or shall inflict a punishment forbidden by the
laWy though its sentence shall be approved by the officers having a re-
visory power of it, civil courts may, on an action by a party aggrieved by
it, inquire into the want of the court's jurisdiction, and give him redress.
(Harman v, Tappenden, i East, 555 ; as to ministerial officers, Mar-
shall's Case, 10 Cr. 76 ; Moravia v, Sloper, Willes, 30 ; Parton v, Wil-
liams, 3 B. & A. 330 ; and as to justices of the peace, by Lord Tenterden,
in Basten v, Carew, 3 B. & C. 653 ; Mills v, Collett, 6 Bing. 85.)

" Such is the law of England. By the Mutiny Acts, courts-martial
have been created with authority to try those who are a part of the army
or navy for breaches of military or naval duty. It has been repeatedly
determined that the sentences of those courts are conclusive in any action
brought in the courts of common law. But the courts of common law
will examine whether courts-martial have exceeded the jurisdiction given
them, though it is said, ' not, however, after the sentence has been rati-
fied and carried into execution.' (Grant ?'. Gould, 2 H. Black. 69 ;
Ship Bounty, i East, 313 ; Shalford's case, i East, 313 ; Mann v, Owen,
9 B. & C. 595 ; In the Matter of Poe, 5 B. & A. 681, on a motion for a
prohibition.)"

I hold it therefore established, that the Supreme Court of
the United States may inquire into the question of jurisdiction
of a military court; may take cognizance of extraordinary pun-
ishment inflicted by such a court not warranted by law, and
may issue writs of prohibition, or give such other redress as
the case may require. It is also clear that the Constitution and
laws of the United States have carefully provided for the pro-
tection of individual liberty, and the right of accused persons
to a speedy trial before a tribunal established and regulated
by law.

The petitioners must, as I have already shown, be placed in
one of four categories. First, they were either in the naval
service ; or, second, in the military service ; or, third, belonged
to the militia, and were called out to serve by order of the Pres-
ident in the national militia; or, fourth, if neither of these three,
nor so connected with them as to be placed by law under the

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 5 5

naval or military jurisdiction, then they were simply civilians,
and subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
It is set forth in the petition, and not denied by the opposing
counsel, that they were in neither of the first three classes, nor
connected with them. They must, therefore, belong to the
fourth class, — unless a fifth should be added, as the learned
counsel on the other side have suggested, and it be held that
they were prisoners of war ; but of that I shall speak hereafter.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the learned
counsel should go beyond the Constitution, beyond the civil, the
naval, and even the military law, to find a basis on which they
may rest the jurisdiction of the tribunal before which the peti-
tioners were tried. They tell us frankly that they do not find its
justification either in the civil or military laws of the land.

The Honorable Attorney-General and his distinguished col-
league* declare in their printed brief, that, —

I. " A military commission derives its powers and authority
wholly from martial law ; and by that law and by military au-
thority only are its proceedings to be judged or reviewed."

II. " Martial law is the will of the commanding officer of an
armed force, or of a geographical military department, ex-
pressed in time of war, within the limits of his military jurisdic-
tion, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or
enlarged by the orders of his military chief or supreme ex-
ecutive ruler,'* and " the officer executing martial law is at the
same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme
executive."

To give any color of plausibility to these novel propositions,
they were compelled not only to ignore the Constitution, but to
declare it suspended, its voice drowned in the thunders of war.
Accordingly, with consistent boldness, they declare that the
third, fourth, and fifth articles of Amendments '* are all peace
provisions of the Constitution, and, like all other conventional
and legislative laws and enactments, are silent inter armUy when
salus populi suprana est lex" Applying these doctrines to this
cause, they hold that from the 5 th of October, 1864, to the
9th of May, 1865, martial law alone existed in Indiana; that it
silenced not only the civil courts, but all the laws of the land,
and even the Constitution itself; and during that silence the
executor of martial law could lay his hand upon every citizen,

» Hon. R F. Duller.

IS6 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

could not only suspend the writ of habeas corpus^ but could
create a court which should have the exclusive jurisdiction over
the citizen to try him, sentence him, and put him to death.

We have already seen that the Congress of the United States
raises and supports armies, provides and maintains navies, and
makes the rules and regulations for the government of both ;
but it would appear from the teachings of the learned counsel
on the other side, that when Congress has done all these things,
— when, in the name of the republic, and in order to put down
rebellion and restore the supremacy of law, it has created the
grandest army that ever fought, — the power thus created rises
aboye its source and destroys both the law and its creator. They
would have us believe that the government of the United States
has evoked a spirit which it cannot lay, — has calkd into being
a power which at once destroyed and superseded its author,
and rode, in uncontrolled triumph, over citizen and court. Con-
gress and Constitution. All this mockery is uttered before this
august court, whose every member is sworn to administer the
law in accordance with the Constitution. This monstrous as-
sumption I shall now proceed to examine.

And now what is martial law? It is a new term to American
jurisprudence ; and I congratulate this court that never before
in the long history of this republic has that word rung out its
lawless echoes in this sacred chamber.

Mr. Butler. Did not the decision in the case of Luther v, Borden
have something to do with martial law ?

It was not the subject decided by the court, and only remote-
ly analogous to this case. The claim to exercise martial law in
that case was under the old charter of Charles II. in Rhode
Island, and not under the Constitution.

I. Sir Matthew Hale, in his History of the Common Law,
says : —

" Touching the business of martial law, these things are to be ob-
served, viz. : —

" First. That in truth and reality it is not a law, but something in-
dulged rather than allowed as a law. The necessity of government,
order, and discipline in an army is that only which can give those
laws a countenance ; — quod enim necessitas cogit defendi,

" Secondly. This indulged law was only to extend to members of the
army, or to those of the opposite army, and never was so much indulged
as intended to be executed or exercised upon others. For others who

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. IS7

were not listed under the army had no color or reason to be bound by
military constitutions applicable only to the army, whereof they were not
parts. But they were to be ordered and governed according to the laws
to which they were subject, though it were a time of war.

" Thirdly. That the exercise of martial law, whereby any person should
lose his life, or member, or liberty, may not be permitted in time of peace,
when the King's courts are open for all persons to receive justice accord-
ing to the laws of the land. This is in substance declared in the Petition
of Right, 3 Car. i, whereby such commissions and martial law were re-
pealed and declared to be contrary to law." ^

2. Blackstone quotes the above approvingly, and still further
enforces the same doctrine.^

3. Wharton, in his Law Lexicon, says: "Martial law is that
rule of action which is imposed by the military power. It has
no place in the institutions of this country [Great Britain], un-
less the articles of war established under the military acts be
considered as of that character. The prerogative of proclaim-
ing martial law within this kingdom is destroyed, as it would
appear, by the Petition of Right." ^

4. Lord Wellington defined martial law as " the will of the
commanding general exercised over a conquered or occupied
territory." This definition was given by him in his despatches
from the Peninsula, and was subsequently repeated in Parlia-
ment, in 1 85 1. In the same debate, Lords Cottenham and
Campbell, and the Attorney-General, Sir J. Jcrvis, declared that
" martial law was the setting aside of all law, and acting under
military power, in circumstances of great emergency, — a pro-
ceeding w'hich requires to be followed up by an act of in-
demnity."

This is the kind of law to which the gentlemen appeal to
establish the validity of the court that tried the petitioners.

In order to trace the history and exhibit the character of mar-
tial law, I shall refer to several leading precedents in English
history.

I. The Earl of Lancaster. In the year 1322, the Earl of Lan-
caster and the Earl of Hereford rebelled against the authority
of Edward II. They collected an army so large that Edward
was compelled to raise thirty thousand men to withstand them.
The rebellious Earls posted their forces on the Trent, and the

1 London edition of 1794, Vol. I. pp. 54, 55. 2 Book I. pp. 413, 414.

8 Third edition, p. 578.

IS8 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

armies of the King confronted them. They fought at Borough-
bridge; the insurgent forces were overthrown; Hereford was
slain, and Lancaster, taken in arms at the head of his army, was,
amid the noise of battle, tried by a court-martial, sentenced
to death, and executed. When Edward III. came into power,
five years later, on a formal petition presented to Parliament
by Lancaster's son, setting forth the facts, the case was ex-
amined and a law was enacted reversing the attainder, and
declaring: " i. That in time of peace no man ought to be ad-
judged to death for treason, or any other offence, without being
arraigned and put to answer. 2. That regularly, when the Kifigs
courts are open, it is a time of peace in judgment of law. 3. That
no man ought to be sentenced to death, by the record of the
King, without his legal XxitX per pares T ^

I call attention to this case as being similar in some of the
points to the cause before us. This man was taken in arms at
the head of his army, and in battle. He was immediately tried
by court-martial and executed ; but it was declared, in the de-
cree that reversed the attainder, that he might have been tried
by the courts of the land, and therefore, for the purposes of his
trial, it was a time of peace ; that he might have been presented,
indicted, and regularly tried before the civil tribunal, and there-
fore the whole proceeding was illegal. So carefully was the line
drawn between civil and martial law five hundred years ago.

2. Sir Thomas Darnell. He was arrested and imprisoned in
1625, by order of the King, for refusing to pay a tax which he
regarded as illegal. A writ of habeas corpus was prayed for, but
answer was returned by the court that he had been arrested by
special order of the King, and that was held to be a sufficient
answer to the petition. Then the great cause came up to be
tried in Parliament, whether the order of the King was suffi-
cient to override the writ of habeas coffus, and after a long
and stormy debate, in which the ablest minds in England were
engaged, the Petition of Right, of 1628, received the sanction of
the King. In that statute it was decreed that the King should
never again suspend the writ of habeas corpus ; that he should
never again try a subject by military commission; and since
that day, no king of England has presumed to usurp that high
prerogative which belongs to Parliament alone.

1 The History of the Picas of the Crown, by Sir Matthew Hale, (Dublin, 1778,)
Vol. I. p. 347 ; Humc*s History of England, (Boston, 1854,) Vol. II. p. 159.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 1 59

3. For the purpose of citing a passage in the argument of
Counsellor Prynn, I call attention to the trial of Lord Macguire.
before the Court of King's Bench, in 1645.^ Lord Macguire
was the leader of the great Irish rebellion of 1641, during the
progress of which more than one hundred thousand men, wo-
men, and children were murdered, under circumstances of the
greatest brutality. He was arrested and held until order had
been restored; and in 1645 was brought before the King's
Bench for trial. Mr. Prynn, counsel for the Crown, published
his argument in the case, in order, as he says, to vindicate the
laws of England —

" In trying this notorious offender, guilty of the horridest, universalest
treason and rebellion that ever brake forth in Ireland ; and that in a time
of open war both in Ireland and England, only by a legal indictment,
and indifferent sworn jury of honest and lawful freeholders, according to
the known laws and statutes of the realm ; not in a court-martial, or any
other new-minted judicature, by an arbitrary, summary, illegal, or martial
proceeding, without any lawful presentment, indictment, or trial by a
sworn, impartial, able jury, resolved to be diametrically contrary to the
fundamental laws, customs, great charters, statutes of the realm, and in-
herent liberty of the subject, especially in time of peace when all other
courts of justice are open, and of very dangerous consequence, and
thereupon especially prohibited, and enacted against."

After giving a long list of references to authorities, he goes
on to say that the law is vindicated still more —

" In allowing him a free, honorable trial upon an indictment first
found upon oath by the grand jury, and then suffering him to take not
only his particular challenges by the poll to every of the jurors returned,
upon a voyre dire (not formerly heard of, yet allowed him, as reasonable,
to take away all color of partiality or non-indifference in the jurors),
whereupon every juryman was examined before he was sworn of the jury,
whether he had contributed or advanced any moneys upon the proposi-
tions for Ireland, or was to have any share in the rebels' lands in Ireland,
by act of Parliament, or otherwise. But likewise in permitting him to
take his peremptory challenge to thirty-five of the two juries returned,
without any particular cause alleged; which liberty — our laws allowing
men, in favorem vitcc, and because there may be private causes of just
exceptions to them known to the prisoner, not fit to be revealed, or for
which he wants present proof, and that in cases of high treason, as well
as of felony — the court thought just and equal to allow the same to
him, though a notorious Irish rebel." *

' 4 State Trials, (London, 1809,) pj). 653 et seq. - Ibid., pp. 691-693.

l6o MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

4. The Bill of Rights of 1688. The house of Stuart had
been expelled, and William had succeeded to the British throne.
Great disturbances had arisen in the realm in consequence of
the change of dynasty. Plots were formed in favor of James in
all parts of England. The King's person was unsafe in Lon-
don. He informed the Lords and Commons of the great dan-
gers that threatened the kingdom, and reminded them that he
had no right to declare martial law, to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus^ or to seize and imprison his subjects on suspicion of
treason or intended outbreak against the peace of the realm.
He laid the case before them, and asked their advice and assist-
ance. In answer Parliament passed the celebrated Habeas Cor-
pus Act. Since that day, no king of England has dared to
suspend the writ. It is only done by Parliament.

5. Governor Wall. In the year 1782, Joseph Wall, Governor
of the British colony at Goree, in Africa, had under his com-
mand about five hundred British soldiers. Suspecting that a
mutiny was about to break out in the garrison, he assembled
them on the parade-ground, held a hasty consultation with his
officers, and immediately ordered Benjamin Armstrong, a pri-
vate and supposed ringleader, to be seized, stripped, tied to
the wheel of an artillery carriage, and to receive eight hundred
lashes with a rope one inch in diameter. The order was carried
into execution, and Armstrong died of his injuries. Twenty
years afterward Governor Wall was brought before the most
august civil tribunal of England to answer for the murder of
Armstrong. Sir Archibald McDonald, Lord Chief Baron of
the Court pf Exchequer, Sir Souldcn Lawrence, of the King's
Bench, and Sir Giles Rooke, of the Common Pleas, constituted
the court. Wall's counsel claimed that he had the power of life
and death in his hands in time of mutiny; that the necessity of
the case warranted him in suspending the usual forms of law ;
that as governor and military commander-in-chief of the forces
at Goree, he was the sole judge of the necessities of the case.
After a patient hearing before that high court, he was found
guilty of murder, was sentenced, and executed.^

I now ask your attention to analogous precedents in our own
history.

I. On the I2th of June, 1775, General Gage, the commander
of the British forces, declared martial law in Boston. The

1 28 State Trials, p. 5^ ; see also Hough's Military Law, pp. 537-540.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS, i6i

battles of Concord and Lexington had been fought two months
before. The Colonial army was besieging the city and its Brit-
ish garrison. It was but five days before the battle of Bunker
Hill. Parliament had, in the previous February, declared the
Colonies in a state of rebellion. Yet, by the common consent
of English jurists. General Gage violated the laws of England,
and laid himself liable to its penalty, when he declared martial
law. This position is sustained, in the opinion of Mr. Justice
Woodbury, in Luther v, Borden et al}

2, On the 7th of November, 1775, Lord Dunmore declared
martial law throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
was long after the battle of Bunker Hill, and when war was
flaming throughout the Colonies; yet he was denounced by
the Virginia Assembly for having assumed a power which the
King himself dared not exercise, as it ** annuls the law of the
land, and introduces the most execrable of all systems, martial
law." Mr. Justice Woodbury declares^ the act of Lord Dun-
more unwarranted by British law.

3. The practice of our Revolutionary fathers on this subject
is most instructive. Their conduct throughout the great strug-
gle for independence was equally marked by respect for civil
law and jealousy of martial law. Indeed, it was one of the
leading grievances set forth in the Declaration of Independence,
that the King of Great Britain had ** affected to render the mil-
itary independent of, and superior to, the civil power " ; and
though Washington was clothed with almost dictatorial powers,
he did not presume to override the civil law, or disregard the
orders of the courts, except by express authority of Congress
or the States. In his file of general orders, covering a period
of five years, there are but four instances in which civilians
appear to have been tried by a military court, and all these
trials were expressly authorized by resolutions of Congress.

In the autumn of 1777. the gloomiest period of the war, a
powerful hostile army landed on the shore of Chesapeake Bay,
for the purpose of invading Maryland and Pennsylvania. It
was feared that the disloyal inhabitants along his line of march
would give such aid and information to the British commander
as to imperil the safety of our cause. Congress resolved " that

* 7 Howard, 48. For a history of the transaction, see Annual Register for

1775. P- '33-

* 7 Howard, 65.

VOL. I. If

1 62 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

the executive authorities of Pennsylvania and Maryland be re-
quested to cause all persons within their respective States, no-
toriously disaffected, to be forthwith apprehended, disarmed,
and secured till such time as the respective States think they
can be released without injury to the common cause," The
Governor of Pennsylvania authorized the arrests, and many dis-
loyal citizens were taken into custody by Washington's officers,
who refused to answer the writ of liabcas corpus which a civil
court issued for the release of the prisoners. Very soon after-
wards the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law indemnifying
the Governor and the military authorities, and allowing a simi-
lar course to be pursued thereafter, on recommendation of Con-
gress or the commanding officer of the army. But this law gave
authority only to arrest and hold, — not to try ; and the act was
to remain in force only till the end of the next session of the
General Assembly. So careful were our fathers to recognize
the supremacy of civil law, and to resist all pretensions of mar-
tial law to authority.

4. I pass next to notice an event that occurred under the
Confederation, before the Constitution was adopted. I refer to
Shays's Rebellion, in 1787, — that rebellion which was men-
tioned by Hamilton in the Federalist as a proof that we needed
a strong central government to preserve our liberties. During
all that disturbance there was no declaration of martial law, and
the habeas corpus was only suspended for a limited time and
with very careful restrictions. Governor Bowdoin's order to
General Lincoln, on the 19th of January, 1787, was in these
words : ** Consider yourself in all your military offensive opera-
tions constantly as under the direction of the civil officer, save
where any armed force shall appear to oppose your marching to
execute these orders."

5. I refer next to a case under the Constitution, the rebellion
of 1793 in Western Pennsylvania. President Washington did
not march with his troops until the judge of the United States
District Court had certified that the Marshal was unable to exe-
cute his warrants. Though the parties were tried for treason,
all the arrests were made by the authority of the civil officers.
The orders of the Secretary of War stated that ** the object of
the expedition was to assist the Marshal of the District to make
prisoners." Every movement was made under the direction of
the civil authorities. So anxious was Washington on this sub-

MILITAR y COMMISSIONS. 1 63

ject, that he gave his orders with the greatest care, and went in
person to see that they were carefully executed. He issued
orders declaring that ** the army should not consider themselves
as judges or executioners of the laws, but only as employed to
support the proper authorities in the execution of the laws.'*

6. I next refer to an incident connected with the Burr con-
spiracy, in 1807. The first developments of this plot were
exceedingly alarming. Reports were forwarded to President
Jefferson, and by him communicated confidentially to the Sen-
ate of the United States, with his recommendation that Congress
pass a law authorizing the suspension, for a limited period, of
the writ of habeas corf us. On the 26th of January, the Senate,
by a unanimous vote, passed a bill authorizing the suspension
of the writ for three months, in cases of persons who were
charged under oath with treason or misprision of treason. Thus
carefully limited and restricted, the bill was sent, under the seal
of secrecy, to the House of Representatives. When it was read,
the doors were immediately opened; a motion was made to
reject the bill, that it might not even reach its first reading;
and, after a very able debate of five days, it was rejected by a
vote of one hundred and thirteen to nineteen.

Not content, even, with that decided expression of sentiment,
two weeks later, on the 17th of February, a resolution was intro-
duced into the House ordering the Committee on the Judiciary
"to bring in a bill more thoroughly to protect the rights of
American citizens from arrest and imprisonment under color of
authority of the President of the United States." After a very
searching and able debate, it was concluded that existing laws
afforded ample protection ; but so anxious were the representa-
tives of the people to place the safety of the citizen beyond the
reach of doubt, that the resolution came within t\vo votes of
passing in the House. The vote stood 58 yeas to 60 nays; and
that, too, in the very midst of the threatened conspiracy.^

I will remark in this connection, that, though President Jef-
ferson recommended the passage of the act referred to, yet
in his correspondence he had previously expressed the opinion
that it was unwise, even in insurrection, to suspend the writ
of habeas corpus?

* The full history of this legislative action will be found in Benton's Abridgment
of Congressional Debates, Vol. III. pp. 504-542.
a Works, Vol. II. pp. 329, 355.

l64 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

So jealous were our people of any infringement of the rights
of the citizen to the privileges of the writ, that in the very
midst of the dangers at New Orleans General Wilkinson was
brought before a court there for having neglected promptly to
obey a writ of habeas corpus.

7. I call the attention of the court for a moment to the dis-
cussion in Congress in relation to the action of General Jack-
son, in 1 8 14, at New Orleans. It will be remembered that,
notwithstanding flagrant war was blazing around New Orleans
when the General declared martial law, yet it was held that he
had violated the sanctity of the courts, and he was fined ac-
cordingly.^ In 1842 a bill was introduced into Congress to
reimburse him for the fine. The debate was very able and
thorough. James Buchanan, then a member of Congress, spoke
in its favor, and no one will doubt his willingness to put the
conduct of Jackson on the most favorable ground possible. I
quote from his speech : —

" It had never been contended on this floor that a military commander
possessed the power, under the Constitution of the United States, to
declare martial law. No such principle had ever been asserted on this
(the Democratic) side of the House. He had then expressly declared
(and the published report of the debate, which he had recently exam-
ined, would justify him in this assertion) that we did not contend,
strictly speaking, that General Jackson had any constitutional right to
declare martial law at New Orleans ; but that, as this exercise of power
was the only means of saving the city from capture by the enemy, he
stood amply justified before his country for the act. We placed the
argument not upon the ground of strict constitutional right, but of such
an overruling necessity as left General Jackson no alternative between
the establishment of martial law and the sacrifice of New Orleans to the
rapine and lust of the British soldiery. On this ground Mr. B. had
planted himself firmly at the last session of Congress ; and here he in-
tended to remain." ^

All the leading members took the same ground. It was not
attempted to justify, but only to palliate and excuse the con-
duct of Jackson.

8. I call attention next to the opinions of our courts in re-
gard to martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus, and first read from the opinion of Chief Justice Mar-

1 For a full record of the law in the case, see 3 Martin's Lou. Rep., O. S., 530.
• Benton*s Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. XIV. p. 628.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 165

shall in Ex parte Bollman : " If at any time the public safety
should require the suspension of the powers vested .... in the
courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.
That question depends on political considerations, on which the
legislature is to decide. Until the legislative will be expressed,
the court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws." ^

I also cite the opinion of the late Chief Justice m Ex parte
Menyman,^ in which it was decided that the legislative au-
thority alone could suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This
decision was rendered in 1862, in the Maryland Circuit.

I shall conclude these citations from our own judicial history
by reading a few paragraphs from the opinion of Mr. Justice
Woodbury in Luther v, Borden et al? The passage loses none
of its force from the fact that it is part of a dissenting opinion ;
for the principles involved in it were not strictly in issue, nor
were they denied by the court. After stating his positions at
length, the learned justice says : —

" For convincing reasons like these, in every country which makes
•any claim to political or civil liberty, * martial law,' as here attempted,
and as once practised in England against her own people, has been
expressly forbidden there for near two centuries, as well as by the prin-
ciples of every other free constitutional govemment. (i HaJlam's
Const. Hist. 420.) And it would be not a little extraordinary if the
spirit of our institutions, both State and national, was not much stronger
than in England against the unlimited exercise of martial law over a
whole people, whether attempted by any chief magistrate or even by a
legislature

" My impression is that a state of war, whether foreign or domestic,
may exist, in the great perils of which it is competent, under its rights
and on principles of national law, for a commanding officer of troops
under the controlling govemment to extend certain rights of war, not
only over his camp, but its environs and the near field of his military
operations. (6 American Archives, 186.) But no further nor wider.
(Johnson v. Davis ct al., 3 Martin, 530, 551.) On this rested the justi-
fication of one of the great commanders of this country and of the age,
in a transaction so well known at New Orleans. But in civil strife they
are not to extend beyond the place where insurrection exists. (3 Mar-
tin, 551.) Nor to portions of the State remote from the scene of military
operations, nor after the resistance is over, nor to persons not con-
nected with it (Grant z\ Gould et al.y 2 H. Black. 69.) Nor even
within the scene can they extend to the person or property of citizens

' 4 Cranch, loi. ^ ^ American I^w Register, 524. ^ 7 Howard, i.

1 66 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

against whom no probable cause exists which may justify it (Sutton v,
Johnston, i D. & E. 549.)" ^

I cannot leave this branch of my argument without fortify-
ing my position by the authority of two of the greatest names
on the roll of British jurists. To enable me to do this, I call
attention to the celebrated trial of the Rev. John Smith, mis-
sionary at Demerara in British Guiana. In the year 1823 a
rebellion broke out in Demerara, extending over isome fifty
plantations. The governor of the district immediately declared
martial law. A number of the insurgents were killed, and the
rebellion was crushed. It was alleged that the Rev. John Smith,
a missionary sent out by the London Missionary Society, had
been an aider and abettor of the rebellion. A court-martial was
appointed, and, in order to give it the semblance of civil law,
the Governor-General appointed the chief justice of the district
as a staff officer, and then detailed him as president of the court
to try the accused. All the other members of the court were
military men, and he was made a military officer for the special
occasion. Missionary Smith was tried, found guilty, and sen-
tenced to be hung. The proceedings came to the notice of
Parliament, and were made the subject of inquiry and debate.
Smith died in prison before the day of execution, but the trial
gave rise to one of the ablest debates of the century, in which
the principles involved in the cause now before this court were
fully discussed. Lord Brougham and Sir James Mackintosh
were among the speakers. In the course of his speech. Lord
Brougham said : —

" No such thing as martial law is recognized in Great Britain, and

courts founded on proclamations of martial law are wholly unknown

Suppose I were ready to admit that, on the pressure of a great emer-
gency, such as invasion or rebellion, when there is no time for the slow
and cumbrous proceedings of the civil law, a proclamation may justifi-
ably be issued for excluding the ordinary tribunals, and directing that
offences should be tried by a military court, — such a proceeding might
be justified by necessity ; but it could rest on that alone. Created by
necessity, necessity must limit its continuance. It would be the worst of
all conceivable grievances, — it would be a calamity unspeakable, — if
the whole law and constitution of England were suspended one hour

longer than the most imperious necessity demanded I know that

the proclamation of martial law renders every man liable to be treated

^ 7 Howard, 62, 83, 84.

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 167

as a soldier. But the instant the necessity ceases, that instant the state
of soldiership ought to cease, and the rights, with the relations, of civil
life to be restored:' ^

The speech of Sir James Mackintosh, who was perhaps the
very first English jurist of his day, is in itself a magazine of le-
gal learning, and treats so fully and exhaustively the subject of
martial law and military tribunals that I shall take the liberty of
quoting several passages. I do this with less hesitation because
I have found no argument so full and complete, and no author-
ity more perfectly applicable to the cause before this court.

" On the legality of the trial, sir, the impregnable speech of my learned
friend * has left me little if anything to say. The only principle on which
the law of England tolerates what is called ' martial law * is necessity ;
its introduction can be justified only by necessity ; its continuance re-
quires precisely the same justification of necessity ; and if it survives the
necessity, in which alone it rests, for a single minute, it becomes instantly
a mere exercise of lawless violence. When foreign invasion or civil war
renders it impossible for courts of law to sit, or to enforce the execution
of their judgments, it becomes necessary to find some rude substitute
for them, and to employ for that purpose the military, which is the only
remaining force in the community."

I desire to call particular attention to the sentences which lay
down the chief condition that can justify martial law, and also
mark the boundary between martial and civil law.

" While the laws are silenced by the noise of arms, the rulers of the
armed force must punish, as equitably as they can, those crimes which
threaten their own safety and that of society, but no longer ; — every
moment beyond is usurpation. As soon as the laws can act, every other
mode of punishing supposed crimes is itself an enormous crime. If
argument be not enough on this subject, — if, indeed, the mere state-
ment be not the evidence of its own truth, — I appeal to the highest
and most venerable authority known to our law."

He proceeds to quote Sir Matthew Hale on martial law, and
cites the case of the Earl of Lancaster, to which I have already
referred, and then declares : —

" No other doctrine has ever been maintained in this country since
the solemn Parliamentary condemnation of the usurpations of Charles I.,
which he was himself compelled to sanction in the Petition of Right.
In none of the revolutions or rebellions which have since occurred has

* Speeches of Henry, Lord Brougham, (Edinburgh, 1838,) Vol. 11. pp. 70, 71.

* Lord Brougham.

1 68 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

martial law been exercised, however much, in some of them, the neces-
sity might seem to exist. Even in those most deplorable of all commo-
tions which tore Ireland in pieces in the last years of the eighteenth
century, — in the midst of ferocious revolt and cruel ^punishment, — at
the very moment of legalizing these martial jurisdictions in 1799, ^^
very Irish statute which was passed for that purpose did homage to the
ancient and fundamental principles of the law in the very act of depart-
ing from them. The Irish statute, 39 George III., chap. 3, after reciting
* that martial law had been successfully exercised to the restoration of
peace, so far as to permit the course of the common law partially to
take place, but that the rebellion continued to rage in considerable parts
of the kingdom, whereby it has become necessary for Parliament to in-
terpose,' goes on to enable the Lord Lieutenant * to punish rebels by
courts-martial.* This statute is the most positive declaration that, where
the common law can be exercised in some parts of the country ^ martial law
cannot be established in others^ though rebellion actually prevails in those
others^ without an extraordinary interposition of the supreme legislative
authority itself . . .

" I have already quoted from Sir Matthew Hale his position respect-
ing the twofold operation of martial law ; — as it affects the army of the
power which exercises it, and as it acts against the army of the enemy.
That great judge, happily unused to standing aniiies, and reasonably
prejudiced against military jurisdiction, does not pursue his distinction
through all its consequences, and assigns a ground for the whole which
will support only one of its parts. * The necessity of order and discipline
in an army ' is, according to him, the reason why the law tolerates this
departure from its most valuable rules ; but this necessity only justifies
the exercise of martial law over the army of our own state. One part of
it has since been annually taken out of the common law and provided
for by the Mutiny Act, which subjects the military offences of soldiers
only to punishment by military courts even in time of peace. Hence we
may now be said annually to legalize military law ; which, however, dif-
fers essentially from martial law, in being confined to offences against
military discipline, and in not extending to any persons but those who
are members of the army. Martial law exercised against enemies or
rebels cannot depend on the same principle, for it is certainly not in-
tended to enforce or preserve discipline among them. It seems to me
to be only a more regular and convenient mode of exercising the right to
kill in war, — a right originating in self-defence, and limited to those
cases where such killing is necessary as the means of insuring that end.
Martial law put in force against rebels can only be excused as a mode of
more deliberately and equitably selecting the persons from whom quarter
ought to be withheld in a case where all have forfeited their claim to it.
It is nothing more than a sort of better regulated decimation, founded

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 169

upon choice, instead of chance, in order to provide for the safety of the
conquerors, without the horrors of undistinguished slaughter ; it is justi-
fiable only where it is an act of mercy. Thus the matter stands by the
law of nations. But by the law of England it cannot be exercised except
where the jurisdiction of courts of justice is interrupted by violence.
Did this necessity exist at Demerara, on the 13th of October, 1823?
Was it on that day impossible for the courts of law to try offences ? It
is clear that, if the case be tried by the law of England," and unless an
affirmative answer can be given to these questions of fact, the court-
martial had no legal power to try Mr. Smith."

After presenting arguments to show that a declaration of mar-
tial law was not necessary, the learned jurist continues : —

" For six weeks, then, before the court-martial was assembled, and for
twelve weeks before that court pronounced sentence of death on Mr.
Smith, all hostility liad ceased, no necessity for their existence can be
pretended, and every act which they did was an open and deliberate
defiance of the law of England.

Where, then, are we to look for any color of law in these proceedings ?
Do they derive it from the Dutch law ? I have diligentiy examined the
Roman law, which is the foundation of that system, and the writings of
those most eminent jurists who have contributed so much to the reputa-
tion of Holland. I can find in them no trace of any such principle as
martial law. Military law, indeed, is clearly defined ; and provision is
made for the punishment by military judges of the purely military offen-
ces of soldiers. But to any power of extending military jurisdiction over
those who are not soldiers, there is not an allusion. I will not furnish a
subject for the pleasantries of my right honorable friend, or tempt him
into a repetition of his former innumerable blunders, by naming the
greatest of these jurists ^ \ lest his date, his occupation, and his rank might
be again mistaken, and the venerable President of the Supreme Court
of Holland might be once more called a * clerk of the States General.'
* Persecutio militis,' says that learned person, * pertinet ad judicem mili-
tarem quando delictum sit militare, et ad judicem communem quando
delictum sit commune.' Far from supposing it to be possible that those
who were not soldiers could ever be triable by military courts for crimes
not military, he expressly declares the law and practice of the United
Provinces to be, that even soldiers are amenable, for ordinary offences
against society, to the court of Holland and Friesland, of which he was
long the chief. The law of Holland, therefore, does not justify this trial
by martial law.

''Nothing remains but some law of the colony itself. Where is it?

* Bynkershoek, of whose professional rank Mr. Canning had professed igno-
rance.

1 70 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

It is not alleged or alluded to in any part of this trial. We have heard
nothing of it this evening. So unwilling was I to believe that this court-
martial would dare to act without some pretence of legal authority, that I
suspected an authority for martial law would be dug out of some dark cor-
ner of a Guiana ordinance. I knew it was neither in the law of England
nor in that of Holland ; and I now believe that it does not exist even in
the law of Demerara. The silence of those who are interested in pro-
ducing it is not my only reason for this belief. I happen to have seen
the instructions of the States General to their Governor of Demerara, in
November, 1792, probably the last ever issued to such an officer by that
illustrious and memorable assembly. They speak at large of councils of
war, both for consultation and for judicature. They authorize these
councils to try the military offences of soldiers ; and therefore, by an in-
ference which is stronger than silence, authorize us to conclude that the
Governor had no power to subject those who were not soldiers to their
authority.

" The result, then, is, that the law of Holland does not allow what is
called * martial law * in any case ; and that the law of England does not
allow it without a necessity, which did not exist in the case of Mr. Smith.
If, then, martial law is not to be justified by the law of England, or by
the law of Holland, or by the law of Demerara, what is there to hinder
me from affirming, that the members of this pretended court had no more
right to try Mr. Smith than any other fifteen men on the face of the earth ;
that their acts were nullities, and their meeting a conspiracy ; that their
sentence was a direction to commit a crime ; that if it had been obeyed, it
would not have been an execution, but a murder ; and that they, and all
other parties engaged in it, must have answered for it with their lives ? " *

May it please the court, many more such precedents as I
have already cited might be added to the list, but it is unneces-
sary. They all teach the same lesson. They enable us to trace
from its far-off source the progress and development of An-
glo-Saxon liberty; its innumerable conflicts with irresponsible
power; its victories, dearly bought, but always won, — victories
which have crowned with immortal honors the institutions- of
England, and left their indelible impress upon the Anglo-Saxon
mind. These principles our fathers brought with them to the
New World, and guarded with sleepless vigilance and religious
devotion. In its darkest hour of trial, during the late Rebellion,
the republic did not forget them. So completely have they
been impressed on the minds of American lawyers, so thor-

1 Miscellaneous Works of the Rt. Hon. Sir James Mackintosh, (London, 1S51,)
pp. 734 et seq.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 7 1

oughly have they been ingrained into the very fibre of Ameri-
can character, that notwithstanding the citizens of eleven States
went off into wild rebellion, broke their oaths of allegiance to
the Constitution, and levied war against their country, yet, with
all their crimes upon them, there was still in the minds of those
men, during all the struggle, so deep and enduring an impres-
sion on this great subject that, even during their rebellion, the
courts of the Southern States adjudicated causes like the one
now before you in favor of the civil law and against courts-
martial established under military authority for the trial of citi-
zens. In Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, and other insurgent
States, by the order of the Rebel President, the writ of habeas
corpus was suspended, martial law was declared, and provost-
marshals were appointed to exercise military authority. But
when civilians, arrested by military authority, petitioned for re-
lease by writ of habeas corpus^ in every case save one the writ
was granted, and it was decided that there could be no suspen-
sion of the writ or declaration of martial law by the Executive,
or by any other than the supreme legislative authority. The
men who once stood high on the list of American lawyers, such
as Alexander H. Stephens, Albert Pike, and General Houston,
wrote letters and made speeches against the practice until it
was abandoned. In the year 1862, the commander-in-chief of
the Rebel armies, compelled by the force of public sentiment,
published a general order disclaiming any right or claim of
right to establish martial law or suspend the writ of habeas
corpus without the authority of the Rebel Congress.

I said there was one exceptional instance. A judge of the
Supreme Court of Texas, in the first excitement of the Rebel-
lion, refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release from
military arrest a citizen charged with disloyalty to the Rebel
government. He wrote his opinion, and delivered it; but he
was so much agitated when he found that he stood alone among
judges on that great question of human rights that he went to
the book of records in which his opinion was recorded, and
with his own hand plucked the leaves from the volume and
destroyed them. He also destroyed the original copy, that it
might never be put in type, and, having destroyed everything
but the remembrance of it, ended his life by suicide. I be-
lieve he alone among Rebel judges ventured to recognize mar-
tial law declared without legislative authority.

1 72 MIUTAR Y COMMISSIONS.

The spirit of liberty and law is well embodied in this one sen-
tence of De Lolme : " The arbitrary discretion of any man is
the law of tyrants : it is always unknown, it is different in dif-
ferent men, it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper,
and passion ; in the best it is oftentimes caprice, in the worst
it is every vice, folly, and passion to which human nature is
liable."^ And yet, if this military commission could legally
try these petitioners, its authority rested only upon the will of a
single man. If it had the right to try these petitioners, it had
the right to try any civilian in the United States ; it had the
right to try your Honors, for you are civilians.

The learned gentlemen tell us that necessity justifies martial
law. But what is the nature of that necessity. If, at this mo-
ment, Lee, with his Rebel army at one end of Pennsylvania Ave-
nue, and Grant, with the army of the Union at the other, with
hostile banners and roaring guns, were approaching this Capi-
tol, the sacred seat of justice and law, I have no doubt they
would expel your Honors from the bench, and the Senate and
House of Representatives from their halls. The jurisdiction
of battle would supersede the jurisdiction of law. This court
would be silenced by the thunders of war.

If an earthquake should shake the city of Washington, and
tumble this Capitol in ruins about us, it would drive your Hon-
ors from the bench, and, for the time, volcanic law would super-
sede the Constitution.

If the supreme court of Herculaneum or Pompeii had been
in session when the fiery ruin overwhelmed those cities, its au-
thority would have been suddenly usurped and overthrown ; but
I question the propriety of calling that law which, in its very
nature, is a destruction or suspension of all law.

From this review of the history and character of martial law
I am warranted, by the uniform precedents of English law for
many centuries, by the uniform practice of our fathers during
the Colonial and Revolutionary periods, by the unanimous de-
cisions of our courts under the Constitution, and by the teach-
ings of our statesmen, to conclude, —

I . That the Executive has no authority to suspend the writ of
/labeas corptis, or to declare or administer martial law ; much less
has any military subordinate of the Executive such authority ;

1 Rise and Progress of the English Constiturion, (London, 1838,) Vol. I.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 73

but these high functions belong exclusively to the supreme
legislative authority of the nation.

2. That if, in the presence of great and sudden danger, and un-
der the pressure of overwhelming necessity, the chief Executive
should, without legislative warrant, suspend the writ of habeas
corpus, or declare martial law, he must not look to the courts
for justification, but to the legislature for indemnification.

3. That no such necessity can be pleaded to justify the trial
of a civilian by a military tribunal, when the legally authorized
civil courts are open and unobstructed.

It will be observed that in this discussion I have not alluded
to the legal status of citizens of those States which were de-
clared, both by the legislative and executive departments of the
government, to be in rebellion against the United States. It has
been fully settled, not only by the other co-ordinate branches
of the government, but by this court, that those States consti-
tuted a belligerent government de facto, against which the Fed-
eral government might proceed with all the appliances of war,
and might extend absolute military jurisdiction over every foot
of rebel territory. But the military jurisdiction thus conferred
by the government did not extend beyond the territory of the
rebellious States, except where the tide of war actually swept
beyond those limits, and by its flaming presence made it im-
possible for the civil courts to exercise their functions. The
case before your Honors comes under neither of these condi-
tions ; hence, the laws of war are inapplicable to it.

The military commission, under our government, is of recent
origin. It was instituted by General Scott, in Mexico, to enable
him, in the absence of any civil authority, to punish Mexican
and American citizens for offences not provided for in the Rules
and Articles of War. The purpose and character of a military
commission may be seen from his celebrated Order No. 20, pub-
lished at Tampico. It was no tribunal with authority to punish,
but merely a committee appointed to examine an offender and
advise the commanding general what punishment to inflict.
It is a rude substitute for a court of justice in the absence of
civil law.

Even our own military authorities, who have given so much
prominence to these commissions, do not claim for them the
character of tribunals established by law. The Judge Advocate
General says: ** Military commissions have grown out of the

1 74 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

necessities of the service, but their powers have not been de-
fined, nor their mode of proceeding regulated by any statute

law In a military department the military commission

is a substitute for the ordinary State or United States court,
when the latter is closed by the exigencies of war, or is without the
jurisdiction of the offence committed." ^

The only ground on which the learned counsel attempt to
establish the authority of the military commission to try these
petitioners is that of the necessity of the case. I answer, there
was no such necessity. Neither the Constitution nor Congress
recognized it. I point to the Constitution as an arsenal stored
with ample powers to meet every emergency of national life.
No higher test of its completeness can be imagined than has
been afforded by the great Rebellion, which dissolved the mu-
nicipal governments of eleven States, and consolidated them
into a gigantic traitorous government de facto, inspired with the
desperate purpose of destroying the government of the United
States.

From the beginning of the Rebellion to its close, Congress, by
its legislation, kept pace with the necessities of the nation. In
sixteen carefully considered laws, the national legislature under-
took to provide for every contingency, and to arm the Execu-
tive at every point with the solemn sanction of law. Observe
how perfectly the case of the petitioners was covered by the
provisions of law.

The first charge against them was " conspiracy against the
government of the United States." In the act approved July
31, 1 86 1, that very crime was fully defined, and placed within
the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts of the United
States.

Charge 2 : " Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the
government of the United States." In the act approved July
17, 1862, this crime is set forth in the very words of the charge,
and it is provided that " such person shall be punished by im-
prisonment for a period not exceeding ten years ; or by a fine
not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all
his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at
the discretion of the court."

Charge 3: "Inciting insurrection." In Brightly's Digest ^
there is compiled from ten separate acts a chapter of sixty-four

1 Digest of Opinions for 1866, pp. 131, 133. 2 Vol. II. pp. 191-202.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 75

sections on insurrection, setting forth, in the fullest manner pos-
sible, every mode by which citizens may aid in insurrection, and
providing for their trial and punishment by the regularly or-
dained courts of the United States.

Charge 4: " Disloyal practices." The meanjng of this charge
can only be found in the specifications under it, which consist
in discouraging enlistments and making preparations to resist a
draft designed to increase the army of the United States. These
offences are fully defined in the thirty-third section of the act
of March 3, 1863, " for Enrolling and Calling out the National
Forces," and in the twelfth section of the act of February 24,
1864, amendatory thereof. The provost-marshal is authorized
to arrest such offenders, but he must deliver them over for trial
to the civil authorities. Their trial and punishment are ex-
pressly placed in the jurisdiction of the District and Circuit
Courts of the United States.

Charge 5 : ** Violations of the laws of war," — which, according
to the specifications, consisted of an attempt, through a secret
organization, to give aid and comfort to rebels. This crime is
amply provided for in the laws referred to in relation to the
second charge. But Congress did far more than to provide for
a case like this. Throughout the eleven rebellious States it
clothed the military department with supreme power and au-
thority. State constitutions and laws, the decrees and edicts of
courts, were all superseded by the laws of war. Even in States
not in rebellion, but where treason had a foothold, and hostile
collisions were likely to occur. Congress authorized the suspen-
sion of the writ of habeas corpus, and directed the army to keep
the peace.

But Congress went further still, and authorized the President,
during the Rebellion, whenever, in his judgment, the public
safety should require it, to suspend the privilege of the writ of
Jiahcas corpus in any State or Territory of the United States, and
order the arrest of any persons whom he might believe danger-
ous to the safety of the republic, and hold them till the civil
authorities could examine into the nature of their crimes. But
this act of March 3, 1863, gave no authority to try the person
by any military tribunal, and it commanded judges of the Cir-
cuit and District Courts of the United States, whenever the
grand jury had adjourned its sessions, and found no indictment
against such persons, to order their immediate discharge from

176 MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

arrest. All these capacious powers were conferred upon the
military department, but there is no law on the statute-book in
which the tribunal that tried the petitioners can find the least
recognition.

I wish to call the attention of your Honors to a circumstance
showing the sentiment on this subject of the House of Repre-
sentatives of the Thirty-eighth Congress. Near the close of that
Congress, when the Miscellaneous Appropriation Bill, which au-
thorized the disbursement of several millions of dollars for the
civil expenditures of the government, was under discussion, the
House of Representatives, having observed with alarm the grow-
ing tendency to break down the barriers of law, and desiring to
protect the rights of citizens as well as to preserve the Union,
added to the appropriation bill the following section: ^^ And
be it further enacted, That no person shall be tried by court-
martial or military commission in any State or Territory where
the courts of the United States are open, except persons actually
mustered or commissioned or appointed in the military or naval
service of the United States, or rebel enemies charged with being
spies."

The Section was debated at length in the Senate, and, although
almost every Senator acknowledged its justice, yet, as the nation
was then in the very mid-whirl and fury of the war, it was feared
that the Executive might thereby be crippled, and the section
was stricken out. The bill came back to the House ; conferences
were held upon it, and finally, in the last hour of the session, the
House deliberately determined that, important as the bill was to
the interests of the country, they preferred it should not become
a law if that section were stricken out. I beg leave to read some
passages from the remarks of one of the noblest, ablest, and
most patriotic men that have honored this nation during the
war, — that great man, so lately taken from us, Henry Winter
Davis, of Maryland. After reporting the provisions of the bill
agreed upon by the committee of conference, he said : —

" Under these circumstances it remained for a majority of the House
committee to determine between the great result of losing an important
appropriation bill, or, after having raised a question of this magnitude,
touching so nearly the right of every citizen to his personal liberty and
the very endurance of republican institutions, and to insure its prompt
consideration fastened it on an appropriation bill, to allow it to be stricken
out of the bill as a matter of secondary importance. The committee

MILITARY COMMISSIONS, i;;

thought that their duty to their constituents, to the House, and to them-
selves, would not allow them to provide for any pecuniary appropriations
at the expense of so grave a reflection upon the fundamental principles
of the government

" The practice of the government has introduced into the jurispnidencc
of the United States principles unknown to the laws of the United States,
loosely described under the general term of the rules and usages of icuir,
and new crimes, defined by no law, called * military offences * ; and with-
out the authority of any statute, constitutional or unconstitutional, and
pointing these laws — confined by the usage of the world to enemies
in enemies' territory — against our own citizens in our own territory, has
repeatedly deprived many citizens of the United States of tlieir lil)erty,
has condemned many to death, who have only been redeemed from
that extreme penalty by the kindness of the President's heart, and aided
doubdess by the serious scruples he cannot but feel touching the legality
of the judgment that assigned them to death.

" There have been many cases in which judgments of confinement in
the penitentiary have been inflicted for acts not punishable, either under
the usages of war or under any statute of the United States, by any mili-
tary tribunal ; crimes for which the laws of the United States prescribe
the punishment have been visited with other and severer punishments by
mUitary tribunals ; violations of contract with the government, real or im-
puted, have been construed by these tribunals into frauds, and punished
as crimes ; excessive bail has been demanded, and when furnished im-
pudently refused ; and the attempt of Congress to discriminate between
crimes committed by persons in the military forces and citizens not in
those forces, has been annulled, and the very oficnccs it specifically re-
quired to be tried before the courts of the United States have been tried
before military tribunals dependent upon the will of the President

" The committee remember that such things are inconsistent with tiie
endurance of republican government. The party which tolerates or
defends them must destroy itself or the republic. They felt they had
reached a point at which a vote must be cast which may break up j)oliti-
cal parties, or, if it do not, will break up or save a great republican
government. Before these alternatives they could not hesitate. They
thought it best, now, at this time, to leave this law standing as a broken
dike in the midst of the rising flood of lawless power around us, to show
to this generation how high that flood of lawless power has risen in only
three years of civil war, as a warning to those who arc to come after us,
as an awakening to those who are now with us.

"They have, therefore, come to the determination, so far as the con-
stitudonal pri\ilcges and prerogatives of this House will enable them to
accomplish the result, that this bill shall not Ixjcome a law if these words
do not stand as a part of it, — the affirmation by the representatives of

VOL. I. 13

!•*

1 78 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

the States and of the people of the inalienable birthright of every Ameri-
can citizen ; and on that question they appeal from the judgment of the
Senate to the judgment of the American people." '

The appeal was taken ; the bill failed ; and the record of its
failure is an emphatic declaration that the House of Represent-
atives have never consented to the establishment of any tribu-
nals except those authorized by the Constitution of the United
States and the laws of Congress.

There was one point, suggested rather than insisted upon by
the opposing counsel, which it requires but little more than
a statement to answer. In their brief, the learned gentlemen
say that, if the military tribunal had no jurisdiction, the peti-
tioners may be held as prisoners captured in war, and handed
over by the military to the civil authorities, to be tried for
their crimes under the acts of Congress, and before the courts
of the United States. The answer to this is, that the peti-
tioners were never enlisted, commissioned, or mustered in the
service of the Confederacy ; nor had they been within the Rebel
lines, or within any theatre of active military operations ; nor
had they been in any way recognized by the Rebel authori-
ties as in their service. They could not have been exchanged
as prisoners of war ; nor, if all the charges against them were
true, could they be brought under the legal definitioo of spies.
There appears to be no ground whatever for calling them pris-
oners of war. The suggestion of our opponents, that the peti-
tioners should be handed over to the civil authorities for trial,
is precisely what they petitioned for, and what, according to
the laws of Congress, should have been done. We do not ask
that they shall be shielded from any lawful punishment, but
that they shall not be unlawfully punished, as they now are, by
the sentence of a tribunal which had no jurisdiction over cither
their persons or the subject-matter of the charges.

The only color of authority for such a trial was found in the
President's proclamation of September 24th, 1862, which was
substantially annulled by the Habeas Corpus Act of March 3d,
1863, and the subsequent Presidential proclamation of Septem-
ber iSth, 1863. By these acts, the military authority could
only arrest and hold disaffected persons till after a session of
the United States District Court.

May it please the court, I have thus reviewed the principles

* Congressional Globe, March 3, 1865, pp. 1421, 1422.

MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS. 1 79

upon which our government was founded, the practice of the
fathers who founded it, and the almost unanimous sentiment of
its presidents, congresses, and courts.

I have shown that Congress undertook to provide for all the
nece^ities which the Rebellion imposed upon the nation ; that it
provided for the trial of every crime imputed to the petitioners,
and pointed out expressly the mode of punishment. There is
not a single charge or specification in the petition before you, —
not a single allegation of crime, — that is not expressly pro-
vided for in the laws of the United States ; and the courts arc
designated before which such offenders may be tried. These
courts were open during the trial, and had never been disturbed
by the Rebellion. The military Commission on the tenth day
of its session withdrew from the room where it had been sitting,
that the Circuit Court of the United States might hold its regu-
lar term in its own chamber. For the next ten days the Commis-
sion occupied, by permission, the chamber of the Supreme Court
of the State of Indfana, but removed to another hall when the
regular term of that court began. This military Commission sat
at a place two hundred miles beyond the sound of a hostile gun,
in a State that had never felt the touch of martial law, — that had
never been defiled by the tread of a hostile Rebel foot, except
on a remote border, and then but for a day. That State, with all
its laws and courts, with all its securities of personal rights and
privileges, is declared by the opposing counsel to have been com-
pletely and absolutely under the control of martial law; that not
only the Constitution and laws of Indiana, but the Constitution
and laws of the United States, were wholly suspended, so that
no writ, injunction, prohibition, or mandate of any District or
Circuit Court of the United States, or even of this august tribu-
nal, was of any binding force or authority whatever, except by
the permission and at the pleasure of a military commander.

Such a doctrine, may it please the court, is too monstrous to
be tolerated for a moment; and I trust and believe that, when
this cause shall have been heard and considered, it will receive
its just and final condemnation. Your decision will mark an era
in American history. The just and final settlement of this great
question will take a high place among the great achievements
which have immortalized this decade. It will establish forever
this truth, of inestimable value to us and to mankind, that a
republic can wield the vast enginery of war without breaking

l8o MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

down the safeguards of liberty; can suppress insurrection, and
put down rebellion, however formidable, without destroying the
bulwarks of law; can, by the might of its armed millions, pre-
serve and defend both nationality and liberty. Victories on the
field were of priceless value, for they plucked the life of tjie re-
public out of the hands of its enemies ; but

*• Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war,**

and if the protection of law shall, by your decision, be extended
over every acre of our peaceful territory, you will have rendered
the great decision of the century.

When Pericles had made Greece immortal in arts and arms,
in liberty and law, he invoked the genius of Phidias to devise a
monument which should symbolize the beauty and glory of
Athens. That artist selected for his theme the tutelar divinity
of Athens, the Jove-born goddess, protectress of arts and arms,
of industry and law, who typified the Greek conception of com-
posed, majestic, unrelenting force. He erected on the heights
of the Acropolis a colossal statue of Minerva, armed with spear
and helmet, which towered in awful majesty above the sur-
rounding temples of the gods. Sailors on far-off ships beheld
the crest and spear of the goddess, and bowed with reverent
awe. To every Greek she was the symbol of power and glory.
But the Acropolis, with its temples and statues, is now a heap
of ruins. The visible gods have vanished in the clearer light of
modern civilization. We cannot restore the decayed emblems
of ancient Greece ; but it is in your power, O Judges, to erect
in this citadel of our liberties a monument more lasting than
brass, — invisible indeed to the eye of flesh, but visible to the
eye of the spirit as the awful form and figure of Justice, crown-
ing and adorning the republic ; rising above the storms of polit-
ical strife, above the din of battle, above the earthquake shock
of rebellion; seen from afar, and hailed as protector by the
oppressed of all nations ; dispensing equal blessings, and cover-
ing with the protecting shield of law the weakest, the humblest,
the meanest, and, until declared by solemn law unworthy of
protection, the guiltiest of its citizens.

At the, second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress, a resolution was
adopted, directing the Military Committee to " inquire and report to the
House what legislation or action, if any, is necessary to secure to persons

MILITARY COMMISSIONS. i8i

arrested and imprisoned by military authority a prompt examination into
the causes of the arrest, and their discharge if there be no adequate
cause for their detention, and a speedy trial where there is such cause.'*
Upon a motion to reconsider this resolution, January i8, 1865, M^"-
Garfield said : —

I WISH to make two observations. First of all, I agree with
what the gentleman from Maryland ^ has just said; and in illus-
tration of what I desire to say, I call attention to a bill that
passed the House last session, but did not pass the Senate, and
which, in my judgment, is vitally important as a means to pre-
serve the independence of the officers of our armies. Early in
the war, it will be remembered, Congress, for good reasons,
gave to the President the power of summary dismissal when he
believed the public service would be subserved thereby. At
that time the army was full of traitors, and it was necessary that
by a more summary process than court-martial they should be
driven out

But it was thought last winter by the House of Representa-
tives, that the danger had so far passed that we might safely
repeal the law. Important as that law has been in some re-
spects,— and none will doubt its value and necessity at the time
of its enactment, — I am satisfied that in other respects it has
had a very unfortunate influence. It has gone very far toward
weakening the manliness and independence of the officers in the
army. If, sir, I am in the army, and know that my superior
officer can make such representations as will cause me to be
dismissed without a hearing and without a trial, how strong is
the tendency of that knowledge to make me a timid, subservient
tool ! The whole tendency of it is to take away the personal
independence and manliness of the subordinate officer, because
he has no guard for his standing and position except the favor
of his superior, — no right to demand, as the American officer
always had in former times, that he should be speedily and
fairly tried by a jury of his peers. For this reason we passed
a bill last winter, by a very large majority, — almost unani-
mously, I believe, — to repeal the law giving this power to the
President. That bill is dying a lingering death at the other
end of the Capitol. I believe that the bill ought to become

a law.

I desire, in the second place, to call attention to the fact that

it is now the law, and has been since the foundation of our gov-

1 Mr. Davis.

1 82 MILITAR Y COMMISSIONS.

ernment, that when an officer of the army is arrested for any-
supposed crime or misdemeanor, he shall be held in arrest — it
may be in close confinement and under guard, according to the
enormity of the supposed offence — no longer than eight days
without being furnished with a copy of the charges against him.
The law also allows him a speedy trial.

Now, without trenching upon the business in which the Com-
mittee on Military Affairs was engaged this morning, I will say
that one officer at least has been in confinement for five months
within sight of this Capitol. Both he and his keeper declare
that he has- not been furnished with a copy of the charges
against him. He says tliat he has again and again demanded
in vain to know with what crime he was charged. He is a man
who bears upon his person honorable scars received in the ser-
vice of his country ; he is a colonel ; and the vengeance of some
one fell upon him, like a bolt from a clear sky. He declares
that he knows no reason for it and can learn none. An agent
of the War Department, an officer unknown to the laws and
Constitution of the country, lays his hand upon a man, puts
him in prison, where he is kept until said agent, or some power
above him, is pleased to release him. There are plenty of al-
leged cases where officers and citizens, after being confined for
a long period, have been allowed to go out without a word of
explanation concerning either the arrest or the discharge.

I ask the House of Representatives whether that kind of prac-
tice is to grow up under this government, and no man is to raise
his voice against it, or make any inquiry concerning it, lest
some one should say he is factious, unfriendly to the War De-
partment, and opposing the Administration. Gentlemen, if we
are not men in our places here, let us stop our ears to all com-
plaints ; let every department do as it pleases ; and in meekness
and in silence let us vote whatever appropriations are asked
for. I do not say, for I do not know, that the head of any
department is responsible for these things, or knows them. It
may be they have been done by subordinates. It may be the
heads of departments are not cognizant of the facts. I make
no accusations ; but I do say, that it is our business to see that
the laws be respected, and that if a man has no powerful friend
in court he shall at least find the Congress of the United States
his friend. I hope the resolution will not be reconsidered.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE

PAYMENTS.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

March i6, 1866.

In the Thirty-eighth Congress, Mr. Garfield was a member of the
Committee on Military Affairs ; in the Thirty-ninth, he was transferred,
at his own request, to the Committee of Ways and Means. This transfer
marks a period in his mental history, and in the history of his public
life. Now began his services in the field of economical discussion and
legislation. " The Public Debt and Specie Payments " was the first of
his Congressional speeches on this class of subjects. From this time on,
he bore a prominent part in the discussion of loans, banks, taxation, tariff,
paper money, and resumption, as these questions came before Congress
and the country. As many of these questions were but phases of one
great question — as they grew out of the same general facts — it will be
well here to set those facts down once for all : — i. The enormous ex-
penditures of the war. 2. The imposition of heavy taxation. 3. The
creation of a great public debt. 4. The abandonment of specie pay-
ments, and the issue by the national Treasury of legal-tender paper
money. 5. The national banks, the creation of which involved the
destruction of the old State banks of issue, and the assertion of exclusive
jurisdiction over bank-note issues on the part of the general government.
6. The over-issue and consequent depreciation of the currency.

The legal-tender notes and the national banks were new fiscal instru-
ments to the American people. Of the two acts creating them, the
Legal Tender Act was by far the more radical and dangerous measure.
It involved a complete reversal of the national policy, since from the day
that the Constitution went into effect gold and silver had constituted the
sole tenders for debt. This reversal of policy was justified at the time
by alleging, (i.) That the government could not maintain specie pay-
ments through the war, but must use a cheaper money ; and (2.) That
Congress had the constitutional power, in time of war, to make paper a

1 84 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS,

legal tender. Let it be noted that this power was expressly called a war
power. Not only was the power thus limited, but it was held that, when
the war was over, it would be the duty of the government to return to
coin payments at the earliest practicable moment. The paper promises
of the government — whether bonds or legal- tender notes — must then
be redeemed in coin.

The war over, the President, Secretary of the Treasury, and others
who remembered and respected the promises of 1862 and 1863, thought
that steps should immediately be taken in the direction of resumption.
March 3, 1865, an act was approved which authorized the funding in
six-per-cent gold bonds of the interest-bearing obligations of the govern-
ment. At the opening of the next session, a more decided step was
proposed; viz. to fund its non-interest-bearing obligations. February i,
1866, a bill was reported from the Committee of Ways and Means that,
after amendment, read thus : —

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled
* An Act to provide ways and means to support the government,* ap-
proved March 3, 1865, shall be extended and construed to authorize the
Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to receive any Treasury notes
or other obligations, issued under any act of Congress, whether bearing
interest or not, in exchange for any description of bonds authorized by
the act to which this is an amendment ; and also to dispose of any de-
scription of bonds authorized by said act, either in the United States or
elsewhere, to such an amount, in such manner, and at such rates as he
may think advisable, for lawful money of the United States, or for any
Treasury notes, certificates of indebtedness, or certificates of deposit, or
other representatives of value, which have been or which may be issued
under any act of Congress, the proceeds thereof to be used for retiring
Treasury notes or other obligations issued under any act of Congress ;
but nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any in-
crease of the public debt : Pnnnded^ That the act to which this is an
amendment shall continue in full force in all its provisions, except as
modified by this act."

This was a contractive measure. Its authors and defenders desired as
early a return to specie payments as was practicable ; and they held that
this end could not be reached \vithout reducing the volume of the cur-
rency. Hence it was a proposition to fund greenbacks, as well as to
provide for other obligations of the government as they should mature.
It was opposed on various grounds, but mainly because, as was held, it
would disturb the business of the country. Mr. McCulloch, Secretary
of the Treasury, was known to be a resumption ist and a contractionist ;
and it was well known that he would use whatever power the law gave
him to carry out his ideas. The bill failed in the House, but was re-

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 185

considered and recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means. It
came back to the House, with certain important restrictions and limita-
tions. In the new form the bill passed both Houses, and was approved,
April 12, 1866. This proviso was the most important of the new features
of the bill : " Provided^ That of United States notes not more than ten
million of dollars may be retired and cancelled within six months from
the passage of this act, and thereafter not more than four million of
doll2urs in any one month."

" Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more
effectual than that which deludes them with [irredeemable] paper money." — Danisl Webster.

MR. SPEAKER, — After the long and spirited contest on
this bill, I shall do little beyond making as plain a state-
ment as I can of the great financial problem now before the
country for solution. The bill relates to two leading points in
that problem, viz. : —

1. To our indebtedness that shall accrue from time to time in
the course of the next three years.

2. To our currency and its relation to the standard of value.
I shall notice these in the order that I have named them.
Several gentlemen have said, in the progress of this debate,

that what might have been a very proper financial measure in
time of war might be a very dangerous and unnecessary one
in time of peace ; that the vast powers proposed to be given to
the Secretary of the Treasury in this bill are powers justifiable
only in time of great public danger, as in the late war.

Now I beg to remind gentlemen that the financial problems
before this country are becoming greater since the war than
they were during its continuance. In the midst of the war,
when the blood of the nation was up, — when patriotism was
aroused, and the people were determined to put down the
Rebellion and preserve the republic at all hazards, — when the
last man and the last dollar were oft'ered a willing sacrifice, — it
was comparatively easy to pass financial bills and raise millions
of money. But now, when wc are to gather up all the pledges
and promises of four terrible years, and redeem them out of the
solid resources of the people in time of peace, the problem is
far more difficult. To solve it successfully requires greater
exertion, and perhaps even greater financial ability, than would
be requisite were the war still raging.

1 86 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

What is the amount of indebtedness to be met, and when
must it be met? To this question I invite the careful and
earnest attention of the House. I shall give the official state-
ment of the amount of our total indebtedness, and also of that
portion soon to become due. The amount of our public debt
on the first day of this month was $2,7ii,850,ocx). Less than
half of this amount is funded. Within the next three years
$i,6oo,CX»,CX» of this debt will fall due, and will be presented
at the counter of the Treasury Department for payment. That
payment must be promptly made, or our paper goes to protest
and our credit is broken. I hold in my hand an official table
showing the amount of our indebtedness that matures during
each half-year for the next two years, from which, after a word
of explanation, I will read.

There was on the last day of February, 1 866, a portion of
our debt in the form of a temporary loan to the amount of
$ii9»33S>i94-SO> payable at the option of the lender after ten
days' notice- It would hardly be fair to reckon that whole
amount as payable within the first six months, yet as it may be
called for at any time, and is to the nation the least desirable
form of loan, it must be added to the statement of indebtedness
soon to be met. With this explanation, and supposing the
payment of this loan to be demanded within the next six
months, I call attention to the facts exhibited in the table.

Between this and the 30th of June next, we must pay,
in addition to the regular expenditure of the government,
$138,674,874.82. During the six months ending December 31,
1866, we must pay $47,665,000. During the six months ending
June 30, 1867, we must pay $8,471,000. During the six months
ending December 31, 1867, we must pay $350,000,000. During
the six months ending June 30, 1868, we must pay $369,415,250.
During the six months ending December 31, 1868, we must pay
$287,564,482. So that between this and the assembling of the
next Congress there must be paid over the counter of the
Treasury, besides the ordinary expenses of the government,
$1,201,790,606.82.

I am sure that every member of this House acknowledges
that this is a sacred obligation, every dollar of which must be
promptly met the day it is due. I take it for granted that no
man here will consent that a single dollar of it shall go to pro-
test, or that any act of this House shall bear the least taint or

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 187

color of repudiation. We must, therefore, meet these obliga-
tions. How can it be done?

Mr. Spaulding. Does not this amount of indebtedness include the
seven-thirty bonds for which the government may issue five-twenty
bonds?

My colleague is correct Most of the seven-thirty bonds are
included in this amount, but they must be redeemed in money
or five-twenty bonds at the holder's option. The Secretary has
no power to compel an exchange.

As I have already stated, there will be presented for payment
in some form before the assembling of the Fortieth Congress
$1,201,000,000, in addition to the ordinary expenditures of the
government How are these demands to be met? With what
power is the Secretary of the Treasury clothed to enable him
to meet this enormous obligation?

There are two clauses in the existing laws which give him
some power.

The first and chief is found in the last clause of the first sec-
tion of the act of the 3d of March, 1865, which has been so
ably discussed by my colleague on the committee.^ He has
shown us — and no man, I believe, will venture to deny the
correctness of the position — that the clause gives the Sec-
retary of the Treasury power merely to exchange one kind of
paper for another, but only with the consent of the holder. If
the holder says, ** I will not take your long bonds, I demand
my money," his money he must have. If, when the seven-
thirty bond is due, the state of the market makes money more
valuable than a six-pcr-cent bond for twenty years, the holder
will of course demand money. He will of course take the
option most profitable to himself and least advantageous to the
government.

The other clause is found in the act of June 30, 1864.
The second section of that act allows the Secretary of the
Treasury to take up the various kinds of paper representing
indebtedness, and issue therefor compound-interest notes or
seven-thirty bonds. These two descriptions of paper are of all
others the most expensive for the government to issue. I say,
then, concerning this power, it is one that the Secretary ought
not to use. It would be a calamity should he be compelled to

^ Mr. Allison, of Iowa.

1 88 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

use it. It would be a calamity, in the first place, were he
compelled to issue in exchange for maturing indebtedness these
compound-interest notes, for they are the most costly paper
the government can issue to its creditors, — notes that are pay-
able in three years with interest compounded every six months.
It is enough to break the financial strength of any nation.
Again, by the provisions of this act the Secretary may issue
seven-thirty bonds in exchange for matured indebtedness.
They are short bonds. They now fill the market more than
any others, and will be maturing after about twelve months. If
we pay these out, it will be only for the purpose of taking up
others of the same kind. Even this can be done only at the
option of the holder.

I say, therefore, that the Secretary is substantially limited in
his power to these two clauses of the law : one that he ought
not to use, and cannot use without great disadvantage to the
public credit; and the other that he can use only for the pur-
pose of an even exchange, and that, too, by the consent of
the holders. Therefore he has but little power or discretion in
funding the national debt. If Congress gives him no more
power, the Treasury will be at the mercy of the public creditors,
who may combine to control the stock market, and compel the
Secretary to sacrifice the public credit to the gamblers of Wall
Street. I hold it demonstrable that, if you leave the Secretary
of the Treasury where he is, you abandon him to the mercy of
the holders of the public securities, who, if they please, can
utterly break him down, and send the paper of the government
to protest.

Under these circumstances, it was the duty of the Committee
of Ways and Means to inquire what further power was neces-
sary to enable the Secretary to meet these obligations as they
mature, and put the debt into the form of long bonds at a lower
rate of interest than we now pay. The committee believe that
the bill now before the House gives the Secretary no more
power than is needful for the accomplishment of the work be-
fore him. With that power the Secretary believes he can do
the work. Without it he cannot.

If the plan now proposed be not adopted, it is incumbent upon
this House to offer one that will accomplish the work. It is not
enough that gentlemen are able to point out defects in this bill,
and raise objections to it; but it is incumbent upon them to

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 189

show us a plan which will acccomplish the desired result and
not be liable to equally grave objections.

Now, sir, what has been proposed as a substitute for this bill ?
The distingruished gentleman from Pennsylvania^ has offered a
substitute. I hope no one misunderstands his purpose. He is
not only opposed to the pending bill, but he is unwilling to give
the Secretary any additional power. He is not only unwilling
to give the Secretary additional power, but he desires to take
away much of the power already granted. His substitute con-
sists of the committee's bill, with every vital provision cut out,
and the following disabling section added : " Sec. 2. That all
laws or parts of laws which authorize the Secretary of the Treas-
ury to fund or withdraw from circulation any United States legal-
tender notes not bearing interest be, and the same are hereby,
repealed." If this substitute shall become a law, I desire it to
be remembered that the House must take the responsibility of
the disastrous results which may follow. I have undertaken to
state the first great duty which rests upon the Secretary of the
Treasury; namely, to meet the maturing indebtedness of the
government. Before leaving the first point, however, let me
say that the committee have not been willing to leave the Secre-
tary merely the barren power of exchanging one form of paper
for another, bond for bond, dollar for dollar, and that only at
the option of the holder. It is proposed in this bill that he be
permitted to put a loan on the market, to sell bonds for money,
and with that money redeem the old bonds as they mature.
Even if we had no desire to limit the volume of paper currency,
it would be necessary to give him this power for the purpose of
funding the debt.

But I hasten to the consideration of the currency. I call
attention to the fact that Congress has established a policy,
which is now nearly four years old, in reference to the circulat-
ing medium of the country. Five years ago there were in the
United States over sixteen hundred banks, based on any and
every kind of security, and issuing currency in such amounts
as were authorized by the laws of the various States. The notes
of one bank were based on real estate ; of another, on State
stock ; of another, on United States stock. Each had its pecu-
liar basis, its peculiar kind of currency, and regulated the amount
of its circulation according to its own rules and opinions. Six-

1 Mr. Stevens.

I90 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS.

teen hundred independent corporations were tinkering at the cur-
rency. The result was, that a paper dollar in Ohio, though worth
one hundred cents in gold at home, would pass for only ninety
or ninety-five cents in California or Massachusetts. A Massa-
chusetts dollar would fare equally hard in California. A paper
dollar was worth its face in gold only in the immediate locality
of its issue.

In the progress of the war against the rebellion, there was
adopted a system of national banks based on a uniform security,
— the bonds of the United States, — so that a paper dollar is-
sued in Ohio is worth no less when it reaches Massachusetts.
It was not, however, thought prudent by the Thirty-seventh and
Thirty-eighth Congresses to make the United States govern-
ment a banker for the people, with arbitrary power to regulate
the currency as it pleased. It was thought to be dangerous to
repeat the history of the United States Bank of thirty years ago ;
and therefore it was resolved that a national bank system, based
on the bonds of the United States, and regulated by the ne-
cessities of trade, should be the established policy of the gov-
ernment. The greenback currency was issued only as a war
measure, to last during the necessities of the war, then to be
withdrawn, and give place to the national bank currency.

The war is now ended ; and unless we mean to abolish the
national bank system, and make the government itself a per-
manent banker, we must retire from the banking business, and
give place to the system already adopted. Unless gentlemen
are now ready to abandon entirely the national bank system,
they must consent that ultimately the greenback circulation
shall be withdrawn, and that the notes of the national banks
shall furnish a paper currency which, together with gold, shall
constitute the circulating medium of the country. The com-
mittee have proceeded on the belief that the national bank sys-
tem is to be the permanent system of this country, and that the
greenback circulation was only incidental to the necessities of
war, and that with the removal of these necessities it was to be
withdrawn.

Shall we return to specie payments? and if so, when and
how? The President, in his late annual message, has expressed
clearly and determinedly the purpose of the executive depart-
ment of the government td return at the earliest practicable
moment to the solid basis of gold and silver. The Secretary of

TJStE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 191

thq Treasury in his report sets forth, with very great clear-
ness and ability, the importance of an early return to specie
payments. And this House, on the i8th of December last,
with but six dissenting votes, not only declared itself in favor
of returning as speedily as practicable to a specie basis, but
also declared that the currency must be contracted as a means
of resumption.

Now, how shall this be accomplished ? By what lever can the
financial machinery be so moved as to effect the object so much
desired by every department of the government? I answer,
that the only lever in our hands strong enough to lift the burden
and overcome every obstacle is our power over the greenback
and fractional currency. In the first place, they constitute
$450,000,000 of the volume of the currency. In the second
place, they underlie the national bank system, and constitute
the reserves required by law.

It has been said in this debate, that the circulation is not
redundant; that we have now no more paper money than the
business of the country requires; that the rate of interest is
high, the money market stringent, and prices greatly advanced.
I hold it demonstrable that our redundant currency is the chief
cause of the high prices and the stringent money market.

I know that figures are not always the best index of the finan-
cial situation. If they were, I might show that less than three
hundred million dollars furnished the circulation of this country
before the war, and that now we have more than a tliousanrl
million. I need only refer to the hornbooks of financial sci-
ence to show that the only sure test of the redundancy of paj)cr
money is its convertibility into coin at the will of the holder,
and that its redundancy will inevitably increase prices. On the
latter proposition I will read a sentence from the highest livin^j
authority in political economy, John Stuart Mill: ** That an in-
crease of the quantity of money raises prices, and a diminution
lowers them, is the most elementary proposition in the theory
of currency, and without it we should have no key to any of
the others." *

Mjl Prjce. I want to ask the gentleman from Ohio whether there is
any more ojrrency in circulation now than six months ago. In short, I
want to know whether there has not been more currency in circubfion
every day of the week, and ever>' week of the month, for the last six

> Political Economy, Vol- II p. i5 /Boston, 1843^.

192 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS,

months, — and has it not been increasing? I want to know whether
it is not equally true, that gold has been coming down steadily, certainly,
gradually, surely ; and not only that, but that the commodities of trade
and commerce have come down in the same ratio. Yet the currency
has been increasing, strange as it may seem. And the gentleman need
not go back to the hornbooks to find out these facts. They stare us in
the face every day. It cannot be denied that, while the currency has
been increasing, gold has been going down.

A paragraph from the Merchants' Magazine for January last
will perfectly answer the gentleman's question. It is to this
effect: the President's Message raised government securities
at home and abroad, and depressed gold. The report of the
Secretary of the Treasury accomplished still more. The very
announcement of the policy of resumption has checked gold
and stock gambling and brought down prices. That historical
fact is a complete answer to the gentleman's question. Besides,
sir, it must be remembered that six hundred millions of Rebel
currency collapsed and disappeared on the day the so-called
Southern Confederacy collapsed, and thus left a vacuum into
which our currency has since been flowing.

I call attention, because the gentleman from Pennsylvania^
has referred to it, to a remarkable example in British finan-
cial history. I have never seen a more perfect illustration of
the truth that history repeats itself, than this debate as com-
pared with the debate in the British Parliament during their
great struggle for a return to specie payments after the war
against Napoleon. From 1797 to 1819 the British people had
only a paper circulation, and, as is always the case, the poorer
currency drove out the better. As respectable people leave
that portion of a city in which disreputable people settle, so
gold retires before an irredeemable paper currency. If our
customs and the interest on our public debt had not been made
payable in coin, gold would have disappeared from the country.
In England, when they had no gold in circulation, when prices
had risen, when rents had risen, after stocks had fallen, English-
men did what we are now attempting to do.

In 1 810 a committee of the ablest financiers and statesmen
was ordered to report the cause of high prices and the premium
upon gold, and after a laborious investigation, during which the
most distinguished men were called in as witnesses, that most

^ Mr. Stevens.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS, 193

able paper, the Bullion Report, was submitted to Parliament.
In that report the principle was enunciated that the only true
test of the redundancy of currency is its comparison in value
with gold; that whenever a paper dollar is not exchangeable
for a gold dollar, it is proof that there are too many paper dol-
lars; and there can be no surer test. In the report of that
committee it was laid down as a fundamental proposition, that
nothing but the supreme test of gold applied to paper will
certainly determine the question of redundancy. That report
was debated for many weeks, and every leading banker, broker,
importer, and jobber of England opposed the Bullion Com-
mittee and the proposed return to cash payments. The meas-
ure was defeated. Gold and prices immediately rose. From
181 1 to 1819 there was a steady rise in prices and stocks; and
in the year 18 19 another committee of the House of Commons
was appointed to examine and report on the financial situation
of the kingdom. Three members of the Bullion Committee of
1810 were also on the committee of 18 19. After a most search-
ing investigation, they reported in favor of resumption, and
indorsed the doctrines of the Bullion Report.

Then it was that Sir Robert Peel distinguished himself as
the great statesman and financier of England by declaring in
the House of Commons his conversion to the doctrines of the
Bullion Report, which he had so strenuously opposed eight
years before. I have before me the records of the great debate
in which that illustrious man lamented that the distinguished
author of the Bullion Report of 181 1 ^ was not then alive to
aid him in that struggle, and witness the triumph of those prin-
ciples so clearly set forth in 181 1. Eight years of terrible ex-
perience had demonstrated the truth of the Bullion Report.
** Sir," said Peel, ** \vc shall never have financial security in this
country until we adopt the principles of that report " ; and after
a Parliamentary struggle, the report of which fills nearly five
hundred pages of Mansard's Debates, the report was adopted,
and its principles have ever since been the acknowledged creed
of Great Britain and of all other countries whose people have
carefully studied the subject. I refer to this, sir, as a matter of
history, and I further assert that there is no respectable author-
ity on the subject of finance, on the other side of the water or
here, that denies the doctrine that the only true test of redun-

1 Francis Horner.
VOL. I. 13

1 94 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

dancy of currency is its convertibility into gold. You may
bring your figures to prove that we have no more currency
than our trade requires; but I tell you that so long as your
paper dollar cannot be converted into gold, there is too much
currency, and the moment it can be converted into gold for its
face, it has reached a stable and safe basis.

Now, if any gentleman here has the temerity to deny this
doctrine, I shall be pleased to hear his reasons for it. To make
his denial good, he must prove that the immutable laws of value
have been overthrown. He cannot plead that the necessities of
trade alone control the value of currency. Double the amount
of currency, and the money market will be apparently more
stringent ; triple the amount, and money will be more stringent
still. Why .do we need four times as much money now to
move the products of the country as was needed five years
ago? Simply because the inflation of the currency has quad-
rupled prices and deranged values.

But the worst feature in the case is the stimulus which this
inflation gives to dishonesty everywhere, and the consequent
discouragement of productive industry. I will not now ques-
tion the policy of the act of 1862, by which paper money was
made a legal tender. It was perhaps a necessity of the war
that could not have been avoided. But no one will deny that it
unsettled the basis of all values in this country. It was a decla-
ration by law that a promise to pay a dollar might be dis-
charged by paying a sum less than a dollar. There was a
time within the last two years when an obligation to pay one
hundred dollars could be legally cancelled by the payment of
thirty-eight dollars. The manifold evils resulting from such a
state of things cannot be computed. To fulfil in January the
contract of July may ruin the creditor, because the meaning of
the most important word in the contract has been changed by
the changing market. The dollar of July may have represented
forty cents, while the dollar of January may represent double
that sum.

Will prudent men embark in solid business, and risk all they
possess to such uncertain chances? There is left open the
alluring temptation to speculate on the rise and fall of gold,
stocks, and commodities, a pursuit in which all that is gained by
one is lost by another, and no addition is made to the public
wealth. And this is the history of thousands of our business

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 195

men. They have trusted their capital to the desperate chances
of Wall Street. They have embarked on the sea of paper
money, and they ask us to keep the flood rising that they may
float Every day adds stimulus to this insane gambling, and
depresses legitimate business and honest labor. The tide must
be checked, and the fury of the flood restrained. Wc must
bring values back to the solid standard of gold. Let that be
done, and the fabric of business is founded, not on the sand, but
on the firm rock of public faith. The fury of the storm tore us
from our moorings, and left us to the mercy of the waves. Let
us pilot the good ship again into port, so that we may once
more feel the solid earth beneath our feet.

How perfectly prices have kept pace with the currency let
the history of the last five years show. Name any one year in
which the currency has been more inflated than in the preced-
ing, with no prospect of contraction, and you will find prices
proportionately advanced. I hold in my hand the price list of
the last four years, as published in the Merchants* Magazine.
Take, for example, the average price of flour. In January,
1861, it was $5.35 per barrel; in 1862, it was $5.50; in 1863,
$6.05; in 1864, it was $7; in 1865, $10. The prices kept in \

exact proportion to the volume of the currency. Now, in Jan-
uary, 1866, after the President, the Secretary of the Treasury,
and Congress had made a decided movement toward specie
payments, and indicated their purpose to restore the old stan-
dard of value, the price dropped to $8.75 per barrel, as the
average for the month. Take any one of the sixty-three
articles on this market list, and it will exhibit the same truth,
that an expanded currency produces high prices. British and
French history, as well as our own, give the same testimony on
this subject. I do not, of course, suppose that resumption will
bring us down to old prices. Heavy taxes and the increased
product of gold will hold prices higher than they were before
the war.

I cannot leave this point without citing the great authority of
Daniel Webster on the subject of irredeemable paper money.
I quote from his speech of May 25, 1832, on the Bank of the
United States : — :

"A sound currency is an essential and indispensable security for the
fruits of industry and honest enteq:)rise. Every man of property or in-
dustry, every man who desires to preserve what he honestly possesses, or

/

196 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

to obtain what he can honestly earn, has a direct interest in maintaining
a safe circulating medium ; such a medium as shall be a real and sub-
stantial representative of property, not liable to vibrate with opinions,
not subject to be blown up or blown down by the breath of speculation,
but made stable and secure by its immediate relation to that which the
whole world regards as of a permanent value. A disordered currency is
one of the greatest of political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary
for the support of the social system, and encourages propensities destruc-
tive of its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality, and economy ;
and it fosters the evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the
contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been
more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This
is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the
sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary t}Tanny, oppression, excessive
taxation, these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the commu-
nity, compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed
by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction
enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the in-
justice, and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well disposed,
of a degraded paper currency authorized by law, or in any way counte-
nanced by government." ^

Resumption is not so difficult a work as many suppose. It
did not take so long in England as the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania^ stated in his speech this afternoon. In July, 1819, Par-
liament decreed that after February i, 1820, the Bank should
begin to redeem in small quantities, and should increase the
amount at stated periods until May, 1823, when full specie pay-
ment should be made. The Bank contracted its circulation,
reduced the price of gold, and fully resumed payments. May i,
1 82 1, only fifteen months after the law went into operation. I
should be sorry to see a sudden contraction of our currency
and a rapid decline in gold. It would be too great a shock to
business. But if the Secretary is armed with the requisite power,
he can make the movement so steadily and gradually as not to
disturb, to any dangerous degree, the course of business and
trade.

The chief objection urged against the pending bill is that it
confers too much power, — more than ought to be intrusted to
any man. Now, sir, a tremendous power was given to General
Grant, when the lives of hundreds of thousands of men were
placed absolutely at his disposal. Sherman was intrusted with

1 Works of Daniel Webster, Vol. III. pp. 394, 395. 2 Mr. Stevens.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS, 197

vast power when he started with his great army on his march
to the sea. But it was necessary to trust some one with that
power. Congress could not command armies and plan cam-
paigns. So also, in the present emergency, some one must be
trusted with power. Congress cannot negotiate a loan, cannot
regulate the details of the currency, or fund the debt. It must
delegate the power. I will not eulogize the present Secretary
of the Treasury ; he needs no eulogy from me. It is the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, not Hugh McCuUoch, who needs this
power. I vote to give it to the incumbent of that high office,
whoever he may be, and hold him responsible for the use he
may make of it.

I repeat it, sir, if gentlemen do not approve this bill, they
should offer some other plan that will accomplish the desired
result

[Here Mr. Garfield turned aside from the direct line of his argument
to discuss the question of the States taxing the national bonds. As the
subject of taxing the bonds is much more fully discussed in the speech
of July 15, 1868, that branch of his argument is here omitted.]

The gentleman from Pennsylvania ^ tells us he is in favor of
returning to specie payments when it can be done without dis-
turbing or deranging the business of the country. If he waits
for that, it can never be done. It cannot be done without first
contracting the currency and producing a temporary stringency
in the money market. If we have not the nerve to do that, if
we have not patriotism to suffer that temporary inconvenience,
we must go on in the swift road to financial disaster and ultimate
national bankruptcy.

The gentleman says we must reach specie payments by pro-
tection. He says, if we protect our manufactures we shall keep
gold from going abroad. This is not his first attempt to regu-
late the value and movement of gold by legislation. After a
few days' trial, his law of 1864 for that purpose was repealed.
I do not oppose protection. I am in favor of protecting the
sanctity of contracts by bringing all values back to the basis of
a uniform standard. Then our iron mills will not stand idle,
as they now do, because of the risk occasioned by the violent
fluctuation of prices.

Mr. Speaker, this is our only remedy. I have faith in the

^ Mr. Stevens.

198 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

Secretary of the Treasury that he will, by and by, with as little
disturbance to business as possible, bring us to specie pay-
ments. We have travelled more than one quarter of the way
since Congress met. Gold was then 148, now it is 130. Mercury
in the barometer is not more sensitive to atmospheric influences
than is the gold market to the legislation of Congress. Witness
the following paragraph from the financial column of a recent
New York daily: "Wall Street is more animated to-day in
consequence of the report, which is extensively believed, that
all loan bills will be made conducive to inflation, and that the
temper of Congress is hostile to all measures looking toward
contraction of the greenback currency. This is interpreted
to be favorable to higher prices, and is already producing its
effects in stimulating speculation." Defeat this bill and there
will be a jubilee in Wall Street. This House must take the
responsibility.

•

The bill having been lost ofi the i6th of March by a small majority,
Mr. Garfield changed his vote so as to enable him to move to reconsider,
which motion was sustained by the House on the 19th. Before moving
the previous question, Mr. Garfield said : —

Mr. Speaker, — Every gentleman in this House must admit
that, during the short time given to the committee this morn-
ing, a full hearing has been given to two of the ablest gentle-
men who oppose this measure, and I presume their views could
not have been more strongly stated in the same length of time
than they have just been stated by the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts.^ But I wish to call his attention and that of the House
to the fact that, in the discussion of the bill, he has raised an
issue aside from the question. He has undertaken to antagonize
the policy of the Secretary of the Treasury with the business
interests of the country, and has told us that we are putting in
the hands of the Secretary a power which may be used against
the industry and honest labor of the country.

We propose, sir, to put power into his hands to be used
against those financial gamblers who would break down the
public credit, and thus injure the most important interests of
the country. I would be the last man to cast a vote that could
oppress the manufacturer, or any other producer of wealth, and

1 Mr. Boutwell.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS. 199

I believe that the honorable Secretary asks for power, not to
oppress, but to encourage industry. But I ask gentlemen
whether they have considered where he will be left in case we
do not give him the power he now asks. Why does he ask it?
The President of the United States declared a financial policy,
which has been more fully elaborated by the Secretary, and we
are now asked to give him power to carry out that policy ; but
gentlemen hesitate, because it may bring a temporary pressure
upon the business of the country.

The gentleman has stated the amount of currency that might
be withdrawn under the provisions of this bill, and says if the
whole were withdrawn it would cause a disastrous collapse. He
has forgotten that there is nearly $300,000,000 of gold and
silver in this country which will flow into the circulation as the
gfreenback currency is retired. He has also forgotten that we
are now producing over $100,000,000 in gold and silver every
year from our mines. He has omitted these very considera-
ble sums, which changes entirely the conditions of the problem
before us.

Mr. Stevens. From what data does the gentleman undertake to say
that there is ^300,000,000 in gold now in this country ready for circula-
tion?

I base my estimate on the opinion of those who have given
the subject careful attention, and also upon the condition of our
foreign exchanges. The gentleman is aware that exchange for
gold with all nations is now in our favor, and that cannot be
unless we have a very considerable quantity of gold in the
country.

Mr. Stevens. I have seen no record of over $70,000,000.

There are $57,000,000 in the Treasury now, besides what is
deposited in banks and in private coffers. Beside this, it must be
remembered that gold is now the currency of the Pacific States.
But the fact that foreign exchange is in our favor is an indubi-
table proof that we have a large supply of specie.

Mr. Kelley. Will the gentleman permit a single brief question?
Is not the inflowing volume of gold a return for bonds, rather than for
produce of any kind, raw or manufactured ?

That does not alter the fact. By whatever means it comes,
we have the gold, and the supply is increasing, and will increase'
so long as we pursue the policy of resumption.

200 THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PA YMENTS.

And now, once for all, I desire to say, before leaving this
subject, that neither the Secretary of the Treasury nor the Com-
mittee of Ways and Means intends or desires that there shall be
a rapid contraction of the currency; there is no purpose of
that kind. Already, in anticipation of the measure now under
discussion, gold is falling even more rapidly than is desirable.
I am sorry to see it move downward so fast as it does. And
the Secretary of the Treasury, if he could, would make its de-
cline more gradual.

Mr. Speaker, the question is, will we give the Secretary of
the Treasury the power to initiate the policy of contraction of
the currency, as the House indicated so decisively on the i8th
of December last?^ What other policy has been suggested?
A policy has been suggested by the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania ^ in a bill he introduced this morning. That bill author-
izes the Secretary of the Treasury to take up short bonds as
they mature, and issue greenbacks in payment. If it should be
adopted, $1,000,000,000 of greenbacks would be issued in the
next eighteen months. I have upon my desk a pamphlet
written by a citizen of Pennsylvania signing himself " Patriot,'*
who recommends the immediate issue of $1,000,000,000 of
greenbacks, and believes it would put the country in a healthy
condition for business ! This enthusiastic pamphleteer rises
to the sublime, if not to the blasphemous, and declares, as the
sum of his financial wisdom, that next to the immortal God
paper money is the greatest and most beneficent power on this
earth. This " Patriot " will be delighted with the biM of his
distinguished representative.

Mr. Speaker, there is no leading financier, no leading states-
man, now living, or who has lived within the last half-cen-
tury, in whose opinion the gentleman can find any support.
They all declare, as the Secretary of the Treasury declares, that
the only honest basis of value is a currency redeemable in
specie at the will of the holder. I am an advocate of paper
money, but that paper money must represent what it promises
on its face. I do not wish to hold in my hands the printed lies

1 The reference is to this resolution, adopted at that time : "Resolved, That this
House cordially concurs in the views of the Secretary of the Treasury in relation
to the necessity of a contraction of the currency with a view to as early a resump-
.tion of specie payments as the business interests of the country will permit; and
we hereby pledge co-operative action to this end as rapidly as practicable."

-2 Mr. Kclley.

THE PUBLIC DEBT AND SPECIE PAYMENTS. 20I

of the government; I want its promise to pay, signed by the
high officers of the government, sacredly kept, in the exact
meaning of the words of the promise. Let us not continue to
practise this conjurer's art, by which sixty cents shall discharge
a debt of one hundred cents. I do not want industry every-
-where to be thus crippled and wounded, and its wounds plas-
tered over with legally authorized lies.

A bill was introduced into the House expressing the wishes
of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Committee of Ways
and Means reduced its proportions, and struck out several pro-
visions that they believed could safely be spared. They struck
out tho foreign loan clause, and restricted the power conferred
by it till the Secretary declares that with any less power he shall
be unable to fund our indebtedness and manage our finances.

I propose, sir, to let the House take the responsibility of
adopting or rejecting this measure. On the one side, it is pro-
posed to return to solid and honest values; on the other, to
float on the boundless and shoreless sea of paper money, with
all its dishonesty and broken pledges. We leave it to the
House to decide which alternative it will choose. Choose the
one, and you float away into an unknown sea of paper money,
that shall know no decrease until you take just such a measure as
is now proposed to bring us back again to solid values. Delay
this measure, and it will cost the country dear. Adopt it now,
and with a little depression in business and a little stringency
in the money market the worst will be over, and we shall have
reached the solid earth. Sooner or later such a measure must
be adopted. Go on as you are now going on, and a financial
crisis worse than that of 1837 ^^ill bring us to the bottom.
For one I am unwilling that my name shall be linked to the
fate of a paper currency. I believe that any party which com-
mits itself to paper money will go down amid the general dis-
aster, covered with the curses of a ruined people.

Mr. Speaker, I remember that on the monument of Queen
Elizabeth, where her glories were recited and her honors
summed up, among the last and the highest, recorded as the
climax of all her achievements, was this, — that she had restored
the money of her kingdom to its just value. And when this
House shall have done its work, when it shall have brought back
values to their proper standard, it also will deserve a monu-
ment.

THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

April 14, 1866.

On motion of Mr. Garfield, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was
dispensed with. He then said : —

MR. SPEAKER, — I desire to move that this House do
now adjourn. And before the vote upon that motion is
taken I desire to say a few words.

This day, Mr. Speaker, will be sadly memorable so long as
this nation shall endure, which God grant may be ** till the last
syllable of recorded time," when the volume of human history
shall be sealed up and delivered to the Omnipotent Judge. In
all future time, on the recurrence of this day, I doubt not that
the citizens of this republic will meet in solemn assembly to
reflect on the life and character of Abraham Lincoln, and the
awful, tragic event of April 14, 1865, — an event unparalleled
in the history of nations, certainly unparalleled in our o'.vn. It
is eminently proper that this House should this day place upon
its records a memorial of that event.

The last five years hav6 been marked by wonderful develop-
ments of individual character. Thousands of our people, before
unknown to fame, have taken their places in history, crowned
with immortal honors. In thousands of humble homes arc
dwelling heroes and patriots whose names shall never die. But
greatest among all these great developments were the character
and fame of Abraham Lincoln, whose loss the nation still de-
plores. His character is aptly described in the words of Eng-
land's great Laureate, — written thirty years ago, — in which
he traces the upward steps of

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 203

** Some divinely gifted man,
Whose life in low estate began
And on a simple village green ;

** Who breaks his birth's invidious bar,
And grasps the skirts of happy chance,
And breasts the blows of circumstance,
And grapples with his evil star ;

** Who makes by force his merit known
And lives to clutch the golden keys,
To mould a mighty State's decrees,
And shape the whisper of the throne ;

** And, moving up from high to higher,
Becomes on Fortune's crowning slope
The pillar of a people's hope,
The centre of a world's desire.**

Such a life and character will be treasured forever as the
sacred possession of the American people and of mankind.

In the great drama of the rebellion there were two acts. The
first was the war, with its battles and sieges, its victories and de-
feats, its sufferings and tears. That act w^as closing one year ago
to-night, and, just as the curtain was lifting on the second and
final act, the restoration of peace and liberty, — just as the cur-
tain was rising upon new characters and new events, — the evil
spirit of the rebellion, in the fury of despair, nerved and directed
the hand of an assassin to strike down the chief character in
both. It was no one man who killed Abraham Lincoln ; it was
the embodied spirit of Treason and Slavery, inspired with fearful
and despairing hate, that struck him down, in the moment of the
nation's suprcmcst joy.

Sir, there are times in the history of men and nations, when
they stand so near the veil that separates mortals from the im-
mortals, time from eternity, and men from their God, that they
can almost hear the beatings and feel the pulsations of the heart
of the Infinite. Through such a time has this nation passed.
When two hundred and fifty thousand brave spirits passed from
the field of honor, through that thin veil, to the presence of
God, and when at last its parting folds admitted the martyr
President to the company of these dead heroes of the republic,
the nation stood so near the veil that the whispers of God were
heard by the children of men. Awestricken by His voice, the
American people knelt in tearful reverence and made a solemn

204 ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

covenant with Him and with each other, that this nation should
be saved from its enemies, that all its glories should be restored,
and, on the ruins of slavery and treason, the temples of freedom
and justice should be built, and should survive forever.

It remains for us, consecrated by that great event, and under
a covenant with God, to keep that faith, to go forward in the
great work until it shall be completed. Following the lead of
that great man, and obeying the high behests of God, let us
remember that

** He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat ;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat;
O, be swift, my soul, to answer Him ! be jubilant, my feet 1
Our God is marching on."

I move, sir, that this House do now adjourn.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

July io, 1866.

The Morrill Tariff, enacted at the close of the Congressional session
of 1860-61, greatly increased the duties on imported goods. This legis-
lation was had partly to fill the depleted national treasury, but more
especially to give protection to American industry. It marked a definite
triumph of the protective principle. Subsidiary to this act, other legis-
lation of the same general character was had from time to time, reaching
to the close of the war. Now, it was said, there was a call for still higher
protection. Accordingly, June 25, 1866, Mr. J. S. Morrill, the author of
the former measure, now the chainiian of the Committee of Ways and
Means, reported fi'om that committee a bill to provide increased revenue
fix)m imports, and for other purposes. The " other purposes " were
greater protection. In vindicating the measure, Mr. Morrill said, June 28,
that the war had greatly deranged the industrial and fiscal economy of
the country. Immense masses of wealth had been destroyed, the pro-
ducing power of the country much reduced, new industrial adjustments
had been made, a vast debt had been created, and heavy burdens of
taxation incurred. Nothing but heavier duties on imports would furnish
the needed revenue, and enable American labor to comj)ete with foreign
labor. Mr. Garfield, who was a member of the Committee of Ways and
Means, bore a prominent part in the discussion of the bill. This, his
principal speech, was delivered on July 10, just before the vote was taken.
In it he discusses for the most part general doctrines ; his views on
specific points must be sought in his briefer remarks and in his votes.
In the House the bill was carried ; in the Senate it was referred to the
Finance Committee, and postponed to the next session. Then it came
back to the House, greatly changed, where it finally failed to pass.

MR. SPEAKER, — At this late hour of the session, and after
the protracted discussion in which so many gentlemen
have engaged, I would not further trespass upon the patience

206 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

of the House but for the fact that this bill has been so gravely
misrepresented here, and so unjustly assailed from without.
There has been raised against it no small clamor for iniquities
which it does not contain, and for omissions which have not
been made.

This is not the time to enter into any elaborate discussion of
those general principles which underlie the most complicated
of financial subjects, the trade between the United States and
other nations. The abstract theories of free trade and protec-
tion, as laid down in the books, can be of little practical value
in the consideration of this bill. The disciples of either school
would be puzzled to apply their doctrines to the present situa-
tion of our trade and commerce, as has been strikingly illus-
trated during the progress of this debate. There is scarcely
a free-trader on this floor who has not, since this discussion
began, in order to secure a higher duty on some product in
which his constituents were interested, made use of arguments
which met the hearty approval of the most extreme protection-
ists; and, on the other hand, when these same protectionists
have been desirous of bringing into the country some article
important to their people, we have heard them again and again
defend their propositions by declarations which would bring
down thunders of applause from an audience of free- trade
leaguers.

There are two extremes of opinion in this House and in the
country to which I cannot assent. During the past year I have
been frequently solicited to subscribe publicly to the dogmas of
various organizations based on opposite and extreme doctrines
in relation to our financial policy ; but I have steadily declined
to do so, partly for the reason that I could not assent to all their
articles of faith, and partly because I preferred to approach the
questions on which we were to legislate untrammelled by any
abstract theory, which, although apparently sound, might be
impracticable when applied to the facts of our situation. I
would not be misunderstood ; nor for any political advantage
to myself personally would I allow my constituents to suppose
that I indorsed any doctrines which, though they should be
pleasing to many of them, do not meet my own convictions of
truth and duty.

If to be a protectionist is to adopt the practice which char-
acterized the legislation of Great Britain and the leadings nations

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 207

of Europe for more than two hundred years, and which is now
commended to us by some of our political philosophers and
statesmen, then I am no protectionist, and shall never be one.
If to be a protectionist is to base our legislation upon the policy
which led the Parliament of Great Britain, from the days of
Elizabeth to the days of Charles II., to forbid the exportation
of sheep and wool from the kingdom, under penalty of confisca-
tion and imprisonment for the first offence, and torture and
death for the second; which led the same Parliament in 1678 to
pass a law entitled " An Act for the encouragement of woollen
manufactures," that ordered every corpse to be buried in a
woollen shroud ; which led the Lord Chancellor to declare the
necessity of going to war with Holland because the commerce
of the Dutch was surpassing that of Great Britain ; which led
the diplomatists of England to insist on an article in the treaty
of Utrecht of 171 3, in accordance with which the finest harbor
in Northern Europe was filled up and hopelessly ruined, lest
by its aid the trade of France should eclipse that of England ;
which tortured industry in every imaginable way, and ignored all
the great laws of value, of exchange, and of industrial growth ;
which cost England her North American colonics, and plunged
Europe into more wars during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries than all other causes combined ; — if to be a protec-
tionist means this, or anything fairly akin to this, then, I repeat,
I am no protectionist. That policy, softened down in its out-
ward manifestations, but essentially the same in spirit, is urged
upon us now by those who would have us place so high a duty
upon foreign merchandise as to prohibit the importation of any
article which this country produces or can produce. By so
doing, besides placing ourselves in an attitude of perpetual hos-
tility to other nations, and greatly reducing our carrying trade,
we should make monopolists of all the leading manufacturers of
this country, who could fix the price of all their products at
their own discretion.

If, on the other hand, we should adopt the theories of the
radical free-traders, and declare that our tariff shall be all for
revenue and nothing for protection, — and particularly, were we
to put that doctrine in practice at such a time as in 1836, when
we had no debt and a large surplus in the treasury to be given
away, — no one can fail to see that we should break down the
dikes which our predecessors had erected for the defence of

2o8 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

American industry, — should destroy or seriously cripple our
manufactures, which produce nearly one half the annual income
of our people (for the manufactured products of this country in
i860 were valued at $1,900,000,000), — should revolutionize our
industrial system, and place ourselves at the mercy of foreign
manufacturers. If to be a free-trader means all this, and pledges
us to let the competition of the world come in upon our people,
and thus to disjoint and derange the industrial system of the
United States, then I am no free-trader, and can never be.

One of the worst features in our industrial system is the
irregularity and uncertainty of the legislation in reference to the
tariff. It subjects the business of manufacturing to the uncer-
tainty of a lottery. If the prohibitionists succeed one year, the
profits of manufacturers are enormous; if, as is quite probable,
the reaction of the next year puts free-traders in power, the
losses are equally great. Let either of these parties frame the
tariff, and the result will be calamitous in the highest degree.

What, then, is the point of stable equilibrium, where we can
balance these great industries with the most reasonable hope of
permanence ? We have seen that one extreme school of econo-
mists would place the price of all manufactured articles in the
hands of foreign producers, by rendering it impossible for our
manufacturers to compete with them ; while the other extreme
school, by making it impossible for the foreigner to sell his
competing wares in our market, would leave no check upon the
prices which our manufacturers might fix upon their products.
I hold, therefore, that a properly adjusted competition between
home and foreign products is the best gauge by which to regu-
late international trade. Duties should be so high that our
manufacturers can fairly compete with the foreign product, but
not so high as to enable them to drive out the foreign article,
enjoy a monopoly of the trade, and regulate the price as they
please. To this extent I am a protectionist. If our govern-
ment pursues this line of policy steadily, we shall year by year
approach more nearly to the basis of free trade, because we
shall be more nearly able to compete with other nations on
equal terms. I am for a protection which leads to ultimate free
trade. I am for that free trade which can be achieved only
through protection.

I desire to call attention briefly to some of the fallacies and
misrepresentations by which this bill has been assailed. In the

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 209

first place, it has been stated again and again that this is a New
England measure, and repeated attempts have been made to
arouse sectional jealousy based on that allegation. I affirm
that this is not a New England measure, but that, more than
any tariff ever framed by Congress, it protects and aids the ag-
ricultural interests of the country. If there has ever been an
agricultural tariff, this is one.

Look at its provisions on the subject of wools. It is proposed
to increase the duty on foreign competing wools from six cents
per pound to ten cents per pound, and ten per cent ad valorem^
making the total tariff about eleven and a half cents per pound.
It takes two pounds of the mestiza wool of South America to
equal one pound of our American wool. It is, therefore, a pro-
tection of twenty-three cents per pound on American wools of
the finer qualities, which comprise the great bulk of our wool.
Now, there is grown in the United States one hundred million
pounds of wool per annum ; and yet the gentleman from Iowa ^
tells us that, in consequence of the peculiarity of the climate
and soil of South America, we can never compete with that
country in the production of wool. In the same short speech
the gentleman confuted himself by declaring that wool-growing
was so profitable in Iowa that it did not need protection.

Mr. Kasson. I beg leave to correct the gentleman. I said dis-
tinctly that, in the West, on the prairies and on the plains, where land is
cheap, grass abundant, and the winters mild, we should ultimately be
able to compete with the world.

Then what becomes of his praise of the superior advantages
of South America? I did not so understand the gentleman.
Now, sir, I am surprised that any Representative from the State
of Ohio, where we have six million sheep and where we raise one
fifth of all the wool in the United States, should be found to
oppose this measure as being framed in the interest of New
England.

Let me notice another agricultural feature of the bill. There
are fifty ships trading constantly with Calcutta, bringing India
flaxseed to our shores. In order to encourage the home
growth, we have raised the duty on flaxseed from sixteen to
thirty cents per bushel, and on linseed oil from twenty-three to
thirty cents per gallon ; yet gentlemen say this is a bill for New

^ Mr. Kasson.
VOL. I. 14

210 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

England. If there be any protection in any existing law more
clearly in the interest of agriculture, I should be obliged to any
gentleman if he will name it.

Now, I do not deny that there are some features of this bill
which I desire to see changed. I believe we ought to reduce,
and I believe we shall reduce, the proposed duty on several ar-
ticles named. But if a dozen articles out of the hundreds named
in the bill were somewhat reduced, I would be pleased if any
gentleman here would then point out its supposed exorbitant
features and alleged enormities. It is very easy to join in a
general clamor which others have raised, but not so easy to
state the cause of the outcry.

Mr. Farquhar. I desire to ask the gentleman what, in his judg-
ment, would be the effect of increasing the duty on railroad iron one
hundred per cent, as it is increased by this bill, including the amount of
deduction made by the Internal Revenue Bill, upon the great interests
of the West, now largely engaged in the construction of additional
railways.

I am willing, as a compromise and to favor the building of
railroads, to vote for a reduction of the proposed duty on rail-
road iron, and I presume the Committee of Ways and Means
will agree with me in this. I think we should also reduce the
proposed duty on salt, and I have no doubt in several other
particulars we shall be able to reduce the rate of duty.

Mr. Stevens. Why not at once come out honestly and accept the
proposition of the gentleman from Iowa,* which is a much better and
more ingenious one ?

I will tell the gentleman why before I am done. The gen-
tleman from Iowa 2 says wc ought not to adopt the policy of
protecting those industries of this country that we can make
money at, and if the people cannot make money out of manu-
facturing enterprises, let them go into something more profitable.
He says wc can raise grain for the world without protective
legislation. Let me repeat to him a little of the history of grain-
raising in this country. There was a time when New England
was a great grain-raising country. At a later period, New York
was the granary of the New World. Later still, the granary was
Pennsylvania, then Ohio ; then it was still farther to the west.
But what is the situation now? New England raises wheat enough

^ Mr. Wilson. 2 i\^^ Kasson.

THE TARIFF BILL OF i866. 21 1

to feed her people three weeks in the year ; New York raises
enough to feed her people six months; Pennsylvania just about
enough to supply the wants of her people, with none to spare ;
and Ohio produces a surplus of three million bushels. You
must now go to the prairies of the West before you reach the
granary of this country. Now, I wish to say that this talk
about putting our people wholly into the business of raising
grain for the world is utterly absurd and mischievous. Let me
put a practical question to these extreme free-trade gentlemen
in reference to this matter. Suppose that to-day we were at
war with the great powers of Europe, — suppose we had always
been practising their precepts, and were engaged wholly in
raising grain, — having no manufacturing establishments, as we
should not have had but for the protection that has been ac-
corded to that kind of industry by our predecessors, — should
we not be completely at the mercy of the other nations of the
earth? Edward Everett declared in a speech in 183 1, after
making a careful estimate, that the extra amount paid by the
government of the United States for woollen blankets and cloth-
ing for their soldiers in the war of 181 2 largely exceeded the
amount of revenue ever derived by the United States from all
its tariffs for the protection of all our industries from the foun-
dation of the government to 1831 ; and that it would have
effected a great saving to the government if Congress had ex-
pended many millions of money directly from the treasury before
that war, and had built up and had in readiness these manufac-
tories for the use of the government during the war.

Against the abstract doctrine of free trade, as such, very little
can be said. As a theory, there is much to commend it ; but
it can never be applied to nations, except in time of peace. It
can never be applied to the nations of the earth, except when
they are on the same range of growth and culture. Let war
come, and it utterly destroys and overturns the whole doctrine
in its practical application. Says Prcscott : —

" Nothing is easier than to parade abstract theorems, true in the ab-
stract, in political economy ; nothing harder than to reduce them to
practice. That an individual will understand his own interests better
than the government can, or, what is the same thing, that trade, if let
alone, will fmd its way into the channels on the whole most advantageous
to the community, few will deny. But what is true of all together is not
true of any one singly ; and no one nation can safely act on these prin-

212 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

ciples if others do not. In point of fact, no nation has acted on them
since the formation of the present political communities of Europe. All
that a new state, or a new government in an old one, can now propose
to itself is, not to sacrifice its interests to a speculative abstraction, but
to accommodate its institutions to the great political system of which it
is a member. On these principles, and on the higher obligation of pro-
viding the means of national independence in its most extended sense,
much that was bad in the economical policy of Spain at the period under
review may be vindicated." ^

The example of England has been held up before us. A
word about that example. There is a venerable member in this
hall who was a member of this House long before England had
professed her free-trade doctrines, — while she was one of the
most highly protective nations on the face of the earth. For
two hundred years she pursued a policy that was absolutely
prohibitory; then followed a protective period ; now she pro-
fesses free trade. When she had built up her manufactures,
and had become able to compete successfully with the world in
matters of commerce, she graciously invited all nations to drop
their protective policy and become free-traders. It is like a
giant or an athlete who, after months of training, asks all the
delicate clerks and students to come out and fight or run with
him on equal terms.

I have before me a statement of the revenues of Great Britain
for the last year. Her total revenue was $354,000,000. Of this
sum» $115,000,000, or thirty-two per cent, she raised from cus-
toms ; and it is a remarkable fact that that is precisely the per
cent of our revenue that was raised from customs last year.
This shows that she raises as much by her tariff as we do by
ours in proportion to the amount of our revenue. If gentlemen
desire simply to prostrate us before England, if they desire to
capitulate to her in commerce as we never have capitulated in
arms, let them follow in the lead of these free-trade philoso-
phers. I hold a pamphlet in my hand that was laid upon the
desks of members this morning; and in reply to the question
of my colleague,^ Who in this country is demanding that this
bill be defeated or postponed? I will tell him. Here is the
address of the Free-Trade Association of London to the Ameri-
can Free-Trade League, and if I had time I would read a few

1 Ferdinand and Isabella, Vol. I. p. 488 (Philadelphia, 1873).
8 Mr. Delano.

THE TARIFF BILL OF x866. 213

V

extracts from it Let me read you one of the headings : " Pro-
tection unnecessary to foster manufactures in their infancy/'
They have evidently outgrown their teachers, for John Stuart
Mill admits that much. England never taught that doctrine
until her manufactures had passed beyond their infancy, and
stood breast-high with the world in the full vigor of manhood.
I read a sentence from this disinterested lecture of English-
men to Americans, — of the shopkeeper to his customer, — of
the '' nation of shopkeepers " to the nation of customers and
grain-raisers that some gentlemen would have us become:
" You have most truly remarked in your constitution that pro-
tection to the producer means robbery to the consumer." Now,
the gentleman from lowa^ who has just made his speech pro-
ceeds upon the doctrine that protection is itself robbery ; and
of course he will vote against this bill, and against all other bills
that propose to throw any protection whatever around American
industry.

Two propositions are before the House to keep us from act-
ing directly upon this bill. The real question is, Shall we pass
the bill after the requisite amendments have been made? But,
fearing it may pass, the gentleman from lowa^ picks out a few
pleasant items that refer mainly to the West, with a sprinkling
for the East, and asks us to have the bill sent back to the com-
mittee, with instructions to report those items alone. He offers
a bait to one section of the Union to induce its representatives
to neglect another.

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to listen to the sectional language
that we hear every day in our debates. One gentleman sneers
at New England, and says, " This measure is a New England
pet"; another points at Pennsylvania, and hits her off in an
epigrammatic sentence; another turns to the rough, sturdy
West, and splinters his lance in a sharp assault upon her. I
always understood, during the terrible struggle of the past four
years, that we did not fight for New England, for Pennsylvania,
or for the West, but wc fought for the Union, with all its one-
ness, its greatness, and its glory. And if we are now to come
back, after the victory is won, and hold up our party flags, and
talk about '* our section *' as against " your section," we are
neither patriots nor friends. There should be no division of in-
terest in all great matters of national legislation. And if New

1 Mr. Kasson. ^ Mr. Wilson.

214 THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866.

England has advanced further than Pennsylvania or the West,
and does not so much need protection, she must bear with her
sisters until they, following in her footsteps, can stand on a
basis of equal growth and prosperity. I hope, therefore, no
such partial legislation as that suggested by the motion of the
gentleman from Iowa will prevail. I should be ashamed to vote
for a measure that singled out the interests of my own State and
neglected the interests of others.

Mr. Wilson. Peraiit me to correct the gentleman, for he is entirely
mistaken in regard to the proposition I made. It does not pick out a
few interests, but leaves a margin not exceeding twenty-five per cent on
everything embraced in the bill.

I want to say in regard to the margin of twenty-five per cent,
that nothing can be more absurd than to say that any one rate
per cent shall be the limit put upon all articles, under any and
all circumstances. And that reminds me of a point which I was
about to forget. I wish to call the attention of the House to
the reason why any revision of the tariff is heeded at this time.
The present tariff law was passed in 1864; gold was then at
200, and it rose during the year to 285. Our tariff was adjusted
to that situation of the currency; and what would be highly
protective then might give no protection now, or when gold
shall be as low as it has been since this House met in session.
That is the great trouble with us now. We are afloat without
any fixed standard of value, and that which would be a proper
duty to-day may be a high duty to-morrow and a low one next
day. I greatly regret that we have not been able to reach
nearer to the solid basis of specie, and base our currency and
all our legislation upon some fixed standard. But while we are
tossing as we now are, going up and down twenty and thirty
per cent on gold in the space of a month, it is necessary that
we have a tariff, temporarily at least, that will safely shield the
interests of the country until we have passed the dangers and
reached a more stable financial condition.

One other proposition has been submitted, and with a notice
of that I will conclude. The gentleman from Massachusetts *
proposes that the whole subject be laid over until another winter.
For many reasons I should be glad if we could have more time
to perfect the measure. It would be well if we could give two
or three months of careful study to the problems connected

1 Mr. Dawes.

THE TARIFF BILL OF 1866. 215

with this bill. But gentlemen must remember that the chances
and changes of the next five or six months may be disastrous
to our industries, if we do not, before the close of this session,
adopt some legislation to protect them against sudden danger.
I am sorry, therefore, that my friend from Massachusetts saw
fit to offer that proposition ; it is really only another mode of
killing the bill, and I can hardly believe that he desires such a
result

I hope, sir, that both the propositions to which I have re-
ferred will be voted down ; that we shall amend the bill in sev-
eral particulars, making it as equitable as possible in all its
provisions ; and that we shall pass it. And when the country
comes to understand clearly what we have done, I believe that
the clamor of which we have heard so much will cease, and that
the wisdom of the measure will be vindicated.

NATIONAL POLITICS.

SPEECH DELIVERED AT WARREN, OHIO.

September i, 1866.

FELLOW-<;iTIZENS,— The great conflict of arms through
which the nation has passed, the many and peculiar con-
sequences resulting therefrom, and especially the new duties
devolving upon the people, must, for the present and for many
years to come, be the chief topics of political discussion. The
stupendous facts of the Rebellion overshadow and involve all
other political considerations, and the new problems arising
out of the contest are beset with difficulties of unusual magni-
tude. The work of overcoming these difficulties and solving
these problems has been committed by the good people of the
United States to their representatives in the legislative, execu-
tive and judicial departments of the Federal government, and
some progress has been made during the past year in overcom-
ing them. I shall undertake to show you, my fellow-citizens,
what progress the servants of the people have made in the
discharge of these high duties. I shall speak of the progress
made during the past year in, —
I. Our financial affairs;
II. Our military affairs ;

III. The restoration of the States lately in rebellion.

First, our financial affairs. The pecuniary cost of the war
was enormous, and without a parallel in history. It is impos-
sible even to comprehend the sum expended. It can only be
understood when compared with other expenditures. In the
statements I shall make concerning the cost of the war, let it
be remembered that I do not include the loss occasioned by
the withdrawal of more than two millions of laborers from in-
dustrial pursuits, nor the vast sums expended by States, counties,

NATIONAL POLITICS. 217

cities, and individuals in payment of bounties, and for the relief
of sick and wounded soldiers and their families, nor the larger
losses, which can never be estimated, of property destroyed by
hostile armies. The cost of which I shall speak is that which
appears on the books of the Federal Treasury.

For three quarters of a century the debt of Great Britain has
been considered the financial wonder of the world. That debt,
which had its origin in the Revolution of 1688, was swelled by
more than one hundred years of wars, and other political dis-
asters, till, in 1793, it had reached the sum of $1,268,000,000.
From that time till 1815, a period of twenty-two years of terri-
ble war, England was engaged in a life and death struggle with
Napoleon, — the greatest war of history save our own, — and
at its close, in 181 5, she had added $3,056,000,000 to her debt,
a sum which all the world thought must bring her to financial
ruin. From the 30th of June, i860, to the 30th of June, 1865,
the expenditures of the government of the United States were
more than $3,500,000,000; that is, in five years, we increased
our debt $500,000,000 more than England increased hers in
twenty-two years of her greatest war, — almost as much as she
increased it in one hundred and twenty-five years of war.

But let us compare ourselves with ourselves. Our official
records show that the total cost of our war of Independence
was $135,000,000, and the total expenditure of the Federal
government, from the meeting of the First Congress on the 4th
of March, 1789, to June 30, i860, was $2,015,000,000; making
the total expenditures from the beginning of the Revolution in
1775 to the beginning of the Rebellion, $2,150,000,000. That
is, the expenses of the last five years have been $1,350,000,000
more than all the previous expenses since the government was
founded.

According to the census of i860, the total value of all the
real and personal property in the United States was sixteen
billions of dollars ; the cost of the war was more than three
and a half billions, — that is, every one hundred and sixty dol-
lars' worth of property became liable for the payment of thirty-
five dollars of war expenses. Our debt is part of the money
price which the nation pledged to save its existence, and we
are bound by the sense of gratitude, of honor, and of patriotism
to redeem that pledge, principal and interest, to the uttermost
farthing. The loyal people have accepted the responsibility,

2i8 NATIONAL POLITICS.

and cheerfully consent to bear the burden of such taxes as
would hardly be endured by any other nation. Indeed, a lead-
ing English journal has recently declared that, if Parliament
should impose a tax upon the English people as heavy as the
one now paid by the people of the United States, it would
cause a rebellion in that kingdom.

More than $800,000,000 of our expenses was paid by taxa-
tion while the war was in progress, and during the last fiscal
year, besides paying our heavy annual expenses, we have re-
duced the debt $124,000,000; so that, on the ist of August,
1866, our debt stood at $2,633,000,000. Should we be able to
reduce it at the same rate hereafter, the last dollar of it would
be paid in twenty-one years. Nearly all of this debt is held by
citizens of the United States, who loaned their money to the
government at a time when traitors were hoping, and faint-
hearted friends were fearing, that our cause would be lost. It
was a sublime and inspiring spectacle to see the loyal millions,
from the wealthy capitalist to the day laborer, offering their
substance as a loan to the government, when their only hope
of return rested in their faith in the justice of our cause and
the success of our arms. There were single days in which
$25,000,000 was thus offered. Less than half the debt is now
in long bonds, which have from fifteen to thirty-five years to
run, but $1,600,000,000 will fall due within two years and a
half. As they cannot be paid by taxation in so short a time.
Congress at its last session passed a loan bill, authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to retire these short bonds, and put
out in their stead long bonds, if practicable, at a lower rate
of interest. The bill, however, did not authorize any increase
of the debt, but only an exchange of long bonds for short ones,
which is now being effected.

Intimately connected with our public debt is our national
currency. At the breaking out of the war, the currency of the
country consisted of gold and silver, and the circulating notes
of sixteen hundred banks, organized under the laws of the dif-
ferent States. The notes of these banks, not being based upon
any uniform security, were of different relative value, and were
always of less value as they were farther from home. Our pa-
per-money system had become a grievous evil, for which there
seemed to be no remedy. But tjie necessities of the war com-
pelled the government to take some new step, and the oppor-

NATIONAL POLITICS. 219

tunity was fortunately seized by our distinguished Secretary of
the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, to sweep away the vicious sys-
tem of State banks, which had grown up in defiance of the plain
declaration of the Constitution, that ** no State shall emit bills of
credit, or make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
payment of debts," and to substitute in its place our present cir-
culation of greenbacks and national bank notes. When a citizen
holds a dollar of this bank paper in his hand, he knows that
there is one dollar and ten cents in government bonds locked
up in the vaults of the treasury at Washington and pledged
for its redemption, in case the bank should fail. This dollar is
national, and not local. It is the same in Minnesota as in Maine.

But another and still more important advantage has been
gained by the change in our system of currency. Under the
old system, the general government had no control over the
amount of currency in circulation. Each bank issued notes in
accordance with the laws of the State in which it was organized.
Now, it is a well-settled principle of finance, that no more
money is needed in any country than just the amount necessary
to effect the payments to be made in that country. If there be
less than that amount, the money market is stringent, and ex-
changes are difficult; if there be more, the surplus causes a
rise in prices, or, v/hat is the same thing, a depreciation of the
value of each dollar. By taking the control of the currency
into its own hands, Congress was enabled to regulate the amount
of circulation in accordance with the necessities of business.

The vast expenditures of the war required a large increase
of the volume of the currency. Before the war, about three
hundred millions of money was needed for the business of the
country. Much of the time during the war, we had more than
one thousand millions. Now that we are returning to the pur-
suits of peace, it becomes necessary to reduce the amount of
our paper money, and thus bring prices down to the old stan-
dard. To determine whether there is too much currency in
circulation is always difficult, but the best criterion is the price
of gold. We may be certain that in times of peace, when
there are no great disturbing political causes at work, if a paper
dollar is worth much less than a gold dollar, there are many
more paper dollars than the business of the country demands.
Therefore, in the Loan Bill, Congress provides for a gradual
contraction of the currency. Under the operation of that law.

220 NATIONAL POLITICS.

and with a judicious management of our revenues, we may
expect a gradual decline in gold, and a corresponding fall in
prices, until we shall reach the solid basis of gold and silver.
An uncertain and changeable standard of value is a great finan-
cial evil. If the dollar of to-day shall be worth a dollar and a
half in six months from now, the debtor must pay fifty cents
more than he promised; if in six months the dollar shall be
worth that much less, the creditor would suffer a similar loss.

Here let me remark that, if the Democratic party, which holds
to the extreme doctrine of State rights, should come into power,
they would, without doubt, sweep away our national currency
system, and return to the wretched system of State banks and
State currency.

The maintenance of our national credit, and the ultimate
redemption of our national debt, must depend mainly on a
wise, just, but severe system of Federal taxation. Until the
beginning of the late war, but one of the great nations of the
earth was so lightly taxed as our own. We had not studied
the science of taxation, because, happily, we had no need to
do so. But the war brought the heaviest burdens upon our
people, and when the Thirty-ninth Congress assembled, we
found that many of our taxes were levied upon those branches
of industry which were least able to bear them. Nearly all
our revenues are derived from two sources, viz. the customs
or tariff duties, and internal taxes. Congress made at the late
session a thorough revision of the internal revenue system, and
it is believed that many important improvements have been
made. The provisions of the revenue law of July 13, 1866, are
based upon the following general principles : — -

1. Taxes which tend to discourage the development of wealth
should be abolished or greatly reduced, and the law be so ad-
justed that the burdens shall chiefly fall on realized property.

2. Taxes should not be duplicated by taxing the different
processes through which an article passes in being manufac-
tured, but the tax should be laid upon the finished article when
ready for sale.

3. Articles of prime necessity, like provisions, clothing, agri-
cultural implements, should be nearly or quite exempt from
taxation, and the public burdens should fall upon articles which
minister to vice and luxury.

Guided by these general principles, and finding that the

NATIONAL POLITICS. 221

ample revenues of the goverament would enable us to reduce the
amount of taxation seventy-five millions, Congress proceeded
to exempt entirely from taxation building materials, such as
building stone, slate, marble, brick, tiles, window glass, paint,
painter's colors, linseed oil and other vegetable oils, lime, and
Roman cement; also repairs of all kinds; also agricultural
implements and products, such as machinery for the manufac-
ture of sugar, syrup, and molasses from sorghum, imphee, beets
and com, ploughs, cultivators, harrows, planters, seed drills,
hand rakes, grain cradles, reapers, mowers, threshing machines,
winnowing mills, corn shellers, and cotton gins ; also such ar-
ticles of prime necessity as gypsum, and fertilizers of all kinds,
maple, beet, sorghum, and beet sugar, and molasses, vinegar,
saleratus, starch, and soap valued at less than three cents per
pound; also American steel and railroad iron; and, finally,
all tombstones valued at less than $ioo, and all monuments,
whether erected by public or private munificence, to commemo-
rate the service of Union soldiers who fell in battle or died in
the service. They reduced the tax on clothing and on boots
and shoes from six per cent to two per cent ; exempted milliners
and dress-makers from tax, and exempted shoemakers and
tailors the value of whose work exclusive of materials does not
exceed one hundred dollars per annum. The tax on slaughtered
animals, being a war tax, was repealed. Except cotton and to-
bacco, no agricultural product is now taxed at all. No license
or special tax is now required of farmers, while all other pursuits
and professions are required to pay such a tax, from ten to one
thousand dollars, and more, in proportion to the amount of the
business done.

As an illustration of the vicious system of duplication of taxes,
it was found that by the time an American book was sold in the
market there had been paid from twelve to fifteen separate taxes
upon it. Each constituent part of the book — paper, cloth,
leather, boards, thread, glue, gold-leaf, and type material — had
paid a tax of from three to five per cent, and the finished article,
when sold, had paid a tax of five per cent upon the selling price.
The law was therefore so amended as to remove the tax from the
separate parts and processes, and levy it on the finished product.
On this principle the tax on mineral coal, pig-iron, and castings
for parts of machinery, was repealed, and placed upon the ma-
chine when finished. The tax was removed from crude petro-

222 NATIONAL POLITICS,

leum, and placed upon the refined article when ready for use.
The tax on stoves and hollow ware for domestic use was re-
duced from six to three dollars per ton. That our educational
forces might not be weakened, the tax on books, magazines,
newspapers, printing paper, and all printing material, was greatly
reduced. The heaviest taxes are now levied on distilled spirits,
ale, beer, tobacco, cigars, refined petroleum, cotton, gas, car-
riages of high value, and gold and silver plate ; but silver table
ware used by any one family, not exceeding forty ounces, is
exempt from tax. Fifty per cent of all our internal taxes arc
raised on manufactures. Stamp taxes, another very productive
source of revenue, are nearly all paid by the business men of the
country.

Our second source of revenue is the customs duties on im-
ported goods, from which we realize about one third of all our
revenues. A carefully revised tariff bill passed the House, but
was postponed in the Senate till the next session. It provided
for increased protection on American wool, linseed, tobacco
and cigars, iron and steel, and the various articles manufactured
from them. A bill was passed, however, which will indirectly
effect a considerable increase of tariff duties. As the law before
stood, the ad valorem duties on imports were levied on the price
at which the articles were purchased in the foreign country, ex-
clusive of cost of transportation to the seaboard and the port
charges. Importers bought their goods far in the interior, and
consequently paid the duty on a price much lower than the
article could be bought for at the point of export. By the new
law the duty is to be levied on the articles after all the transpor-
tation, storage, weighagc, wharfage, and port charges have been
added to the original purchase price. This will both increase
the duties and protect the government against fraud.

On the general question of protection there are great extremes
of opinion among the people of the United States, and these ex-
tremes appear in full strength among their representatives in
Congress. One class would have us place so high a duty upon
foreign merchandise as to prohibit the importation of any ar-
ticle which this country produces or can produce. Besides
placing us in an attitude of perpetual hostility to other nations,
and greatly reducing our carrying trade, this policy would tend
to make monopolists of all the leading manufacturers of this
country, who could fix the price of all their products at their
own discretion.

NATIONAL FOLITICS.

223

If, on the other hand, we should adopt the theories of the
radical free-trader, and declare that our tariff shall be all for
revenue and nothing for protection, and particularly should that
doctrine be put in practice at such a time as 1836, when we had
no debt, and a large surplus in the treasury, no one can fail to
see that we should break down the dikes which our predecessors
have erected for the defence of American industries which pro-
duce nearly one half the annual income of the people. It would
revolutionize our industrial system, and place us at the mercy
of foreign manufacturers. Let either of these parties frame the
tariff, and the result will be calamitous in the highest degree.

One of the worst features of our industrial system is the
irregularity and the uncertainty of the legislation in reference
to the tariff. It subjects the business of manufacturers to the
uncertainty of a lottery. If the high protectionists succeed one
year, the profits • of the manufacturers are enormous ; if, as is
quite probable, the reaction of the next year puts free-traders
in power, their losses are equally great. What, then, is the
point of equilibrium where we can balance these great indus-
tries with the most reasonable hope of permanence ? We have
seen that one extreme school of economists would place the
price of all manufactured articles in the hands of foreign pro-
ducers, by rendering it impossible for our manufacturers to
compete with them; while the other extreme school, by making
it impossible for the foreigners to sell their competing wares in
our market, would leave no check upon the prices which our
manufacturers might fix upon their products. I hold, therefore,
that a properly adjusted competition between home and foreign
products is the best gauge by which to regulate international
trade. Duties should be so high that our manufacturers can
fairly compete with foreign manufacturers, but not so high as
to enable them to drive out foreign articles, enjoy a monopoly,
and regulate the prices as they please. To this extent I am a
protectionist. If our government pursues this line of policy
steadily, we shall, year by year, approach more nearly the basis
of free trade, because we shall be more nearly able to compete
with other nations on equal terms. I am for that protection
which leads to ultimate free trade ; I am for that free trade
which can be achieved only through protection.

Secondly, our military affairs. When the Rebellion col-
lapsed, in 1865, we had on the rolls of the army and in the pay

224 NATIONAL POLITICS.

of the government over one million soldiers. A few weeks later
a larger army than was ever actually engaged in one battle, with
a rare perfection of discipline and completeness of military out-
fit, marched in review before the President and his Cabinet at
Washington ; mustered out of service, these soldiers quietly re-
sumed the pursuits of peace, and mingled again with the mass
of citizens. There had been in the field more than two millions
of Union soldiers, of whom two hundred and fifty thousand per-
ished in battle and by disease, and almost as many more came
home nearly or quite disabled by the accidents of war. In
January last the army had been reduced to one hundred and
twenty-three thousand men, and Congress has now fixed its
numbers for the future at about fifty-five thousand. In reor-
ganizing the army, and adding new regiments. Congress has pro-
vided that all company officers needed to fill the places result-
ing from the increase of the regular army, and two thirds of the
field officers, shall be taken from the volunteers, to be selected
from officers or enlisted men, no distinction being made between
them. But applicants must produce evidence of good character
and capacity, stand an examination before a board, and show, in
addition to their testimonials, that they have faithfully and effi-
ciently served, cither as officers or men, at some time during the
war against the Rebellion. Congress has also provided that four
regiments of infantry and two regiments of cavalry shall be col-
ored men, and their officers shall be selected from those officers
who commanded colored troops during the war. It is also pro-
vided that four regiments shall be made up of officers and en-
listed men who received injuries while in the service of their
country, but are still able to perform garrison duty and other
light service.

The pension list has been largely increased, and the pensions
of soldiers and sailors who have lost both arms or both legs have
been doubled. No patriot will object to the increased burden
imposed upon him in discharging his sacred duty to those
heroic sufferers.

The legislation in reference to equalizing bounties was not so
satisfactory. It was very desirable to pass some law by which
the bounties to volunteers should be made to approach equality.
A considerable portion of the army received no bounties, while
others received large local, State, and national bounties. It is
a difficult question to settle on any just basis without involving

NATIONAL POLITICS. 225

the government in a dangerous increase of the public debt.
After mature deliberation the Military Committee of the House
brought in a bill which provided that every soldier who had re-
ceived no bounty should be paid eight and one third dollars for
every month of honorable service, which would be one hundred
dollars for each full year. If he had received a bounty, but less
than that amount, the government should {:>ay him the deficit ;
so that every soldier in the Union army should receive a bounty
of at least one hundred dollars for each year of honorable ser-
vice. This bill passed the House by the unanimous vote of the
Union members, but the Senate took no action upon it. Near
the close of the session the Senate added to an appropriation
bill a section increasing the pay of members of Congress. The
House refused to concur, but added in place of that section the
House Bounty Bill. The Senate refused to concur, but after
several conferences between the two houses, a section was
agreed upon which gives a bounty of one hundred dollars to
every soldier who enlisted and served three years, and who has
not already received more than one hundred dollars bounty, and
a bounty of fifty dollars to every soldier who enlisted and served
for the term of two years, and who has not already received a
bounty of more than one hundred dollars. The operation of
this section is confined exclusively to these two classes ; it
gives no more for four years' service than for three, and gives
nothing to those soldiers who enlisted for a less term than
two years. It is much less just than the flouse bill, and, since
it was coupled with a section which increases the pay of mem-
bers of Congress, I voted against both sections. They passed
the House, however, by a majority of one, and became law.
It is hoped and believed that the original flouse bill, or some
equivalent measure, will become a law at the next session.

Although measures of financial and military legislation are
worthy of the earnest attention of every citizen, I fear I have
already dwelt too long upon them. I therefore invite your
attention to the questions that so nearly concern our future
peace, that form the great issues which must be settled by the
ballots of the people at the coming election.

Thirdly, the restoration of the late Rebel States. For a clear
understanding of the issues, let us consider the character of the
contest through which we have passed.

The Rebellion had its origin in two causes; first, the political

VOL. I. 15

226 NATIONAL POLITICS.

theory of State Sovereignty, and second, the historical accident
of American slavery. The doctrine of State Sovereignty, or
State Rights as it has been more mildly designated, was first
publicly announced in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, but was
more fully elaborated and enforced by Calhoun in 1830 and
1833. Since that time it has been acknowledged as a funda-
mental principle in the creed of the Democratic party, and has
been affirmed and reaffirmed in some form in nearly all its State
and national platforms for the last thirty years. That doctrine,
as stated by Calhoun in 1833, is in substance this: "The Con-
stitution of the United States is a compact to which the people
of each State acceded as a separate and sovereign community ;
therefore it has an equal right to judge for itself as well of the
infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.'* The same
party identified itself with the interests of American slavery, and,
lifting from it the great weight of odium which the fathers of the
republic had laid upon it, became its champion and advocate.

When the party of freedom had awakened the conscience of
the nation, and had gained such strength as to show the De-
mocracy that slavery was forever checked in its progress, and
that its ultimate extinction by legislative authority was fore-
doomed, the Democratic leaders of the South joined in a mad
conspiracy to save and perpetuate slavery by destroying the
Union. In the name of State Sovereignty they declared that
secession was a constitutional right, and they resolved to en-
force it by arms. They declared that, as the Constitution to
which each State in its sovereign capacity acceded created no
common judge to which a matter of difference could be referred,
each State might also in its sovereign capacity secede from the
compact, might dissolve the Union, might annihilate the repub-
lic. The Democracy of eleven slave States undertook the work.
As far as possible, they severed every tie that bound them to
the Union. They withdrew their representatives from every
department of the Federal government; they seized all the
Federal property within the limits of their States; they abol-
ished all the Federal courts and every other vestige of Federal
authority within their reach ; they changed all their State con-
stitutions, transferring their allegiance to a gov^ernmcnt of their
own creation, styled the '* Confederate States of America " ;
they assumed sovereign power, and, gathering up every possi-
ble element of force, assailed the Union in the most savage and

NATIONAL POLITICS. 227

merciless war known to civilized nations. It was not, as some
maintain, merely a lawless insurrection of individual traitors;
it was '* a civil territorial war," waged by eight millions of trai-
tors, acting through eleven traitor States consolidated into a
gigantic despotism of treason, — a government de facto ^ to
which the laws of nations accorded belligerent rights. The
Confederacy was acknowledged as a belligerent by all the lead-
ing nations of Europe, and at last by every department of the
government of the United States; by the Supreme Court in
the celebrated prize cases of 1862, and by repeated acts of both
the executive and legislative departments.

Never was an issue more clearly made up or more desper-
ately contested. The Confederates fought for slavery and the
right of secession, for the destruction of the Union and the
establishment of a government based on slavery ; the loyal
millions fought to destroy the Rebellion and its causes. They
fought to save slavery by means of disunion; we fought to
establish both liberty and union, and to make them one and
inseparable now and forever. It was a life and death struggle
between ideas that could no longer dwell together in the same
political society. There could be no compromise, there could
be no peace, while both were left alive. The one must perish
if the other triumphed.

There was no compromise. The struggle was continued to
the bitter end. In the larger meaning of the word, there was
no surrender. The Rebels did not lay down their arms, for the
soldiers of the Union wrenched them from their grasp. They
did not strike their traitor flag; it was shot down by loyal bul-
lets. The Rebel army never was disbanded ; its regiments and
brigades were mustered out by the shot and shell of our victo-
rious armies. They never pulled down the Confederate govern-
ment, but its blazing rafters fell amidst the conflagration of war,
and its ashes were scattered by the whirlwind of battle.

And now, fellow-citizens, after the completest victory ever
won by human valor, — a victory for the Union which was all
victory and no concession, — after a defeat of the Rebels, which
was all defeat and no surrender, — we arc asked to listen to the
astonishing proposition that this war had no results beyond the
mere fact of victory. A great political party is asking the suf-
frages of the people in support of the unutterably atrocious
assertion that these red-handed and vanquished traitors have

228 NATIONAL POLITICS,

lost no rights or privileges by their defeat, and the victors have
acquired no rights over traitors and treason as the fruit of their
victory ! These antediluvian philosophers seem to have turned
down a leaf in the record of the life of the republic in April,
1861, and they propose now, in the year of grace 1866, to begin
again where they ceased reading five years ago, as if there had
been no crime, no treason, no deluge of blood, no overthrow of
rebellion, no triumph of liberty. Fellow-citizens, who are the
men that advocate this monstrous doctrine? I cannot answer
this question without discussing freely the public conduct of
the President of the United States.

For the first eight months after the collapse of the Rebellion,
I did not hear that any man making the smallest claim to loy
alty presumed to deny the right of the government to impose
conditions upon the States and people lately in rebellion. Cer-
tainly the President did not. Both in his executive acts and in
repeated declarations, he affirmed again and again the right of
the government to demand security for the future, — to require
the performance of certain acts on the part of the Rebel States
as preliminary to restoration.

You will remember, fellow-citizens, that when I addressed
you in the spring of 1865, shortly after the assassination of
President Lincoln, I expressed the belief that Andrew Johnson
would treat traitors with the severity their crimes demanded.
There was a general apprehension that he might be too severe,
and demand conditions so hard as to make the restoration of
the Rebel States a work of great difficulty. It was said that he
knew from personal experience what the Rebellion was, and
what treatment treason deserved. The American people re-
membered his repeated declarations on this whole subject.
They remembered his bold speech at Nashville, on the 9th of
June, 1864, when he accepted the nomination for the Vice-
Presidency, and used the following language : —

"Why all this carnage and devastation? It was that treason might be
put down and traitors punished. Therefore, I say that traitors should
take a back seat in the work of restoration. If there be but five thousand
men in Tennessee loyal to the Constitution, loyal to freedom, loyal to
justice, these true and faithful men should control the work of reorganiza-
tion and reformation absolutely. I say that the traitor has ceased to be
a citizen, and in joining the Rebellion has become a public enemy. He
forfeited his right to vote with loyal men when he renounced his citizen-

NATIONAL POLITICS. 229

ship and sought to destroy our government My judgment is that

he should be subjected to a severe ordeal before he is restored to citi-
zenship Ah ! these Rebel leaders have a strong personal reason

for holding out to save their necks from the halter ; and these leaders
must feel the power of the. government. Treason must be made odious,
and traitors must be punished and impoverished. Their great planta-
tions must be seized and divided into small farms, and sold to honest, in-
dustrious men. The day for protecting the lands and negroes of these
authors of the Rebellion is past." ^

They remembered his speeches at Washington after his in-
auguration, in which the same sentiments were repeated. They
remembered that in his address to Governor Morton and the
Indiana delegation, on the 21st of April, 1865, six days after
the pistol of Booth made him President of the United States, he
said : —

" It is not promulgating anything that I have not heretofore said, to
say that traitors must be made odious, that treason must be made odious,
that traitors must be punished and impoverished. They must not only
be punished, but their social power must be destroyed. If not, they
will still maintain an ascendency, and may again become numerous and
powerful ; for, in the words of a former Senator of the United States,
* when traitors become numerous enough, treason becomes respectable.*
And I say that, after making treason odious, every Union man and the
government should be remunerated out of the pockets of those who have
inflicted this great suffering upon the country Some time the re-
bellion may go on increasing in numbers till the State machinery is over-
turned, and the country becomes like a man that is paralyzed on one
side. But we find in the Constitution a great panacea provided. It
provides that the United States (that is, the great integer) shall guarantee
to each State (the integers composing the whole) in this Union a repub-
lican form of government. Yes, if rebellion had been rampant, and set
aside the machinery of a State for a time, there stands the great law to
remove the paralysis, and revitalize it, and put it on its feet again." ^

It is true, however, that there were even then those who ex-
pressed doubts of his sincerity, and feared he would betray his
trust. When, during the months of May, June, and July, 1865,
they saw him appointing Provisional Governors for seven of
the Rebel States, and ordering the assembling of conventions
to form new constitutions and rebuild their State governments,
many thought he should have called upon Congress to assemble
and perform the duty enjoined upon it in the Constitution of

* McPhcrson's History of Reconstruction, pp. 46, 47, note. ^ ibid., pp. 45, 46.

230 NATIONAL POLITICS.

guaranteeing to every State in the Union a republican form of
government. But the confidence of the people was kept alive
by his repeated declarations to the Governors and conventions
that his work was only provisional, and must all be submitted
to Congress for its action.

On the 29th of May, 1865, he published his amnesty procla-
mation, and on the same day appointed William W. Holdcn
Provisional Governor of North Carolina. In the proclamation of
appointment he declared that whereas " the Constitution of the
United States declares that the United States shall guarantee .to
every State in the Union a republican form of government, ....
and whereas the Rcbellicn has in its rezwliiiionary progress de-
prived the people of the State of North Carolina of all civil govern-
mcnty' he therefore appointed William W. Holden Provisional
Governor, " with authority to exercise within the limits of said
State all the powers necessary and proper to enable such loyal
people of North Carolina to restore said State to its constitu-
tional relations to the Federal government, and to present such
a republican form of State government as will entitle the State
to the guaranty of the United States therefor, and its people to
protection by the United States." ^ On the same terms seven
other Governors were appointed. On the 12th of September,
the Secretary of State, by direction of the President, wrote to
Governor Marvin, of Florida, a letter, which concluded in these
words: "It must, however, be distinctly understood that the
restoration to which your proclamation refers will be subject to
the decision of Congress." ^

But the confidence of the people did not rest solely upon the
fact that the President held that all his work was provisional,
and must be referred to Congress for its final settlement. Their
confidence was still further strengthened by his repeated official
declarations that guaranties must be demanded of the Rebel
States before they could be restored to their practical relations
to the Union.

On the 28th of October, the Secretary of State wrote to the
Provisional Governor of Georgia as follows : ** The President
of the United States cannot recognize the people of any State as
having resumed the relations of loyalty to the Union that ad-
mits as legal, obligations contracted or debts created in their
name to promote the war of the Rebellion." ^

1 McPherson's History of Reconstruction, p. 11. a Ibid., p. 25.

8 Ibid., p. 21.

NATIONAL FOLITICS. 231

On the 1st of November, he wrote to the Provisional Gov-
ernor of Florida the following : " Your letter of October 7 was
received and submitted to the President. He is gratified with the
favorable progress toward reorganization in Florida, and directs
me to say that he regards the ratification by the legislature of
the Congressional Amendment [Thirteenth] of the Constitution
of the United States as indispensable to a successful restora-
tion of the true legal relations between Florida and the other
States, and equally indispensable to the return of peace and
harmony throughout the republic." ^

On the 6th of November he wrote to the Provisional Gover-
nor of South Carolina these words : ** Your despatch to the Pres-
ident, of November 4, has been received. He is not entirely sat-
isfied with the explanations it contains. He deems necessary the
passage of adequate ordinances declaring that all insurrectionary
proceedings in the State were unlawful and void ab initio^ ^

In these utterances the President had plainly demanded at
least three conditions indispensable to restoration : —

1st. That the Rebel States should declare their ordinances of
secession void ab initio,

2d. That they should ratify the Constitutional Amendment
abolishing slavery.

3d. That they should repudiate the Rebel debt, and that their
whole conduct in the premises should be referred to Congress
for its action.

But during the months of autumn there were rumors in the
air which troubled the peace of patriotic citizens. It was whis-
pered that the President was going over to our political enemies.
It was observed that the tone of the Democratic and Rebel
press had wonderfully changed toward him. P>om the begin-
ning of the war till the summer of 1865, Southern traitors and
Northern Democrats had vied with each other in their denun-
ciation of his public acts, — of his political and private charac-
ter. The Rebels had all along denounced him as a renegade, a
traitor to his country, a low-born boor ; while Northern Demo-
cratic journals, like the New York World, had denounced him
as a turncoat, a tyrant, a boorish tailor, a drunken brute, less
respectable than Nero's horse. But as the fall elections of 1865
approached, they began to speak of him as an old-fashioned
Democrat who had not forgotten the lessons of his youth, and

1 McPhcrson's History of Reconstruction, p. 25. ^ Ibid., p. 23.

232 NATIONAL POLITICS.

who would yet turn his back upon the Union party, and return
to the embrace of his former friends. The people were alarmed
at these manifestations, but were somewhat reassured by the
declarations of the President made to Major George L. Stearns
on the 3d of October, when he said : —

" The power of those persons who made the attempt [at rebellion]
has been crushed, and now we want to reconstruct the State govern-
ments and have the power to do it. The. State institutions are prostrated,
laid out on the ground, and they must be taken up and adapted to the

progress of events We must not be in too much of a hurry. It

is better to let them reconstruct themselves than to force them to it;
for if they go wrong the power is in our hands, and we can check them

in any stage tp the end, and oblige them to correct their errors

In Tennessee I should try to introduce negro suffrage gradually ; first,
those who have served in the army, those who could read and write, and
perhaps a property qualification for others, say $200 or I250." ^

When Congress met, in December last, there was great anx-
iety and no little alarm. From the first hour of the session, the
little junto of Rebel sympathizers known as the Democratic
party in Congress became the eulogists and defenders of the
President. Their denunciations of the Union party echoed fa-
miliarly as of old through the halls of the Capitol ; but their
censures were turned to praises, their curses to blessings, when
they spoke of the President elected by the Union party.

But even then we did not lose all our faith in Andrew Johnson.
Mis annual message, though carefully worded, reiterated many of
his former declarations, and the most radical men in Congress
thanked him, and took new courage. In that message he said : —

" It is not too much to ask, in the name of the whole people, that on
the one side the pkm of restoration shall proceed in conformity with a
willingness to cast the disorders of the past into oblivion ; and that, on
the other, the evidence of sincerity in the future maintenance of the
Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the ratification of the proposed
amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the abolition of slav-
ery forever within the limits of our country. So long as the adoption of
this amendment is delayed, so long will doubt and jealousy and uncer-
tainty prevail Indeed, it is not too much to ask of the States which

are now resuming their places in the family of the Union to give this
pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace. Until it is done, the past, how-
ever much we may desire it, will not be forgotten.** ^

1 McPherson's History of Reconstruction, p. 49. ^ ibij., p. 65.

NATIONAL POLITICS. 233

But hardly was the printer's ink dry on the pages of the
message, when the President began to insist on the immediate
admission of representatives from the Rebel States. In this
demand he was clamorously seconded by the Democrats in Con-
gress, by every Democratic orator and editor in the North, and
by every Rebel of the South. Let it be remembered that the
demand was made for months before even Andrew Johnson
claimed that the Rebellion was legally ended. It was not until
the 2d of April, 1866, that he declared by proclamation that
the Rebellion had ceased in ten of the States ; and even then
he did not consider it ended in Texas. It was not until the
meeting of the Philadelphia Convention, two weeks ago, that
he declared the Rebellion suppressed in that State.

Who were those representatives for whom admittance into
Congress was demanded ? Of the eighty- seven elected from
Rebel States, not ten ever made professions of loyalty. Fifteen
had been generals or colonels in the Rebel army, or members of
the Rebel Congress, or of Secession conventions.

The President did not long leave us in doubt. In his address
to a Rebel delegation from Virginia, on the loth of February,
1866, he intimated his purpose of uniting with them, and with
them sweeping round the circle of the Union, and putting down
certain Radicals, whose policy he denounced as " a rebellion at
the other end of the line." On the 22d of February, he ad-
dressed a vast concourse of Northern Democrats, of Rebels in
Confederate gray, and of Secession sympathizers who had never
been out of their holes to bask in the sunshine of Presidential
favor since Buchanan betrayed his country, all of whom had
assembled to thank him for having refused to give military pro-
tection to the frecdmen of the South. His utterances in that
speech are only too well remembered ; I shall not repeat them
here.

Congress then undertook to extend the protection of the civil
courts over the black loyalists. The President refused his sig-
nature, but your loyal representatives were able to pass it over
his head. About the same time the men of Connecticut were
struggling to elect, as their Governor, a gallant soldier who had
fought for the Union with distinguished honor from the begin-
ning to the end of the war. He was opposed by the whole
strength of that Rebel-loving Democracy, headed by Eaton and
Toucey, whose " bad eminence " is a part of the history of the

234 NATIONAL POLITICS.

Rebellion. A Democratic member of the Thirty-eighth Con-
gress was their candidate for Governor, and Andrew Johnson
threw the weight of his great patronage into the scale, recom-
mended the Federal office-holders to work for English, and
sent a score of his new-found friends from Washington to
urge the people to defeat the Union general. Thanks to the
loyalty of the people of Connecticut, they were able to defeat
both President and Democracy, and General Hawley was made
Governor by a few hundred votes.

The true men of the Cabinet still remained in their places, in
the faint hope that he might yet come back to the party. But
Andrew Johnson was content with no half-way measure. He
resolved on nothing less than the defeat and overthrow of the
Union party. By the aid of a Senator and an ex-Governor of
Wisconsin,^ who had been repudiated by the loyal men of the
State, a call was issued on the 27th of June for a general con-
vention of those who would indorse the President, to meet in
Philadelphia on the i6th of August. This call was indorsed by
the forty-five Democratic members of Congress, including such
patriots as Garrett Davis of Kentucky, Ross of Illinois, Rogers
of New Jersey, and Finck and Le Blond of Ohio. When the
Cabinet officers were asked to join in the movement, Dennison,
Harlan, and Speed responded by denouncing the convention,
and sending in their resignations.

The convention assembled in full force, and under rules as
rigid and with order and harmony as perfect as ever obtained
under the discipline of the Ohio penitentiary, it has given us
the results of its labors in a decalogue of ** principles " and an
address of four newspaper columns, which must now be re-
garded as the latest version of the President's Rebel Democratic
policy. To understand the policy which the nation is now in-
vited to adopt, it will be necessary to examine somewhat the
parties that composed and the purposes which inspired the Phil-
adelphia Convention. Three classes made up the assemblage.

First, the unwashed, unanointed, unforgiven, unrepentant, un-
hung Rebels of the South. They were represented by such
politicians as the Rebel Vice-President, lately called from the
casements of Fort Warren by his admiring constituents, to rep-
resent them in the Senate of the United States; by such gallant
generals as Dick Taylor, who, when his brigade had captured in

1 J. R. Doolittle and A. W. RandaH.

NATIONAL POLITICS. 235

battle seven Union men that had escaped the rebel conscription
in Louisiana, and had joined a Vermont regiment to fight for
the Union, compelled them to dig their own graves, and then
ordered them shot in his presence ; by such clergymen as the
Rev. Jesse B. Ferguson, who, years ago (possibly in antici-
pation of the wants of his brother Champ, lately hanged in
Nashville for twenty Union murders) proclaimed a post 7uoricm
gospel, glad tidings for the dead and damned, — who gave the
weight of his ministerial character to aid in the destruction of
the Union, and now speaks touchingly of the " lost cause " ; and
last, but not least, by Governor Orr, who taught the blessed les-
son that, if South Carolina would join the arm-in-arm embrace
of Massachusetts, she must first slaughter twenty-five thousand
sons of the Bay State. This first class formed the great, dumb,
heroic element of the convention.

The second class was the dishonored, depraved, defeated
remnant of Northern Democracy. The divine Fernando, the
sainted martyr Vallandigham, the meek-eyed Ryndcrs, and the
patriotic H. Clay Dean were there, and their past distinguished
services in the cause of their country were equalled only by the
self-sacrificing spirit by which they preserved the harmony of
the convention. The part played by the Democracy in the con-
vention was a humble one. They could not have looked upon
their brother delegates from the South without feelings of rev-
erence and admiration for the heroism wliich led them to do
battle in the field to sustain a cause for which they themselves
had dared to do no more than speak and vote and pray.

Third, last and least, were all the apostate Union men who
hunger and thirst after office and the spoils thereof, — who
greedily gather up the crumbs that fall from the political
table. This class was not the Lazarus of the convention, for
though the Democracy did not hesitate to lick their sores
and make them the chief managers, they still lacked the piety
of the Jew. They are paupers, disinherited by the party of
freedom, and are now begging their political bread from door
to door. There were men whose presence in that convention
was a painful surprise to their Union friends; men of whom
higher and nobler things were expected ; men who had ser\ed
with honor in the army of the Union. Let us hope that, when
they see the company into which they have fallen, they will re-
member the holy cause for which they have fought, and retrace

236 NATIONAL POLITICS.

their unfortunate steps. Such was the convention and such the
men by whom and through whom the President proposes to
settle the great questions now pending before the nation.

And now let us examine its doctrines. The leading thought
which inspired all the declarations of the convention was uttered
by Alexander H. Stephens, late Vice-President of the Confeder-
acy, and by Thomas Ewing, Vice-President of the Philadelphia
Convention. Mr. Stephens said, in his evidence before a commit-
tee of Congress, given three months ago : " Georgia will accept
no conditions of restoration. She claims to come back with her
privilege of representation unimpaired." While the Philadelphia
Convention was assembling, Mr. Ewing said : ** Even in the heat
and violence of the Rebellion, the States in which Rebel violence
most prevailed were each and all of them, as States, entitled to
their representation in the two Houses of Congress." This, I
say, was the central thought in the convention, and even the
accomplished acrobat of the New York Times, though he waded
knee-deep in words through his four-column address, was not
able to sink it out of sight. In their ** declaration of principles"
it is expressly affirmed that the war " left the rights and author-
ity of the States free and unimpaired ; that neither Congress nor
the President has any power to question their right to represen-
tation." Planting themselves on this doctrine, they ask that the
people elect to the Fortieth Congress only those who acknowl-
edge the unqualified right of the Rebel States to immediate
representation. They also ask the President to use his vast
official patronage to secure this result.

F'reighted with its proceedings, a committee of this mongrel
convention repaired to Washington, and in the east room of
the White House enacted the farce of delivering them to the
President. He indorsed the doctrines of the convention, and
then gave utterance to a sentiment so reckless and revolutionary
as to create the profoundest alarm among loyal men. The
Democratic and Rebel journals have for months been denoun-
cing Congress as an illegal body, a revolutionary rump, and have
demanded their dispersion by force. Alexander H. Stephens
expressed the opinion that the acts of this Congress are illegal,
because the Rebel States are not represented. Garrett Davis
expressed the same opinion in the Senate, and appealed to the
President to disperse it and recognize the Rebel and Democratic
members as the Concrress of the United States. But all these

NATIONAL POLITICS. 237

suggestions were regarded as the insane ravings of men blinded
by partisan fury. But here, in a speech made by appointment
to a committee whose plans and purposes he noj only knew,
but had helped to form, Andrew Johnson used this language :
"We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as
it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of
the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only a part
of the States." Who is the "government" upon the "verge"
of which the President declares the Congress of the United
States " hangs" as an unlawful appendage? We had supposed
that the government of the United States consisted of the su-
preme power of the people, vested in the legislative, judicial,
and executive departments ; but he speaks of the Thirty-ninth
Congress as a body " called " or " assumed to be the Congress
of the United States." If these words have any meaning, they
mean that the President regards your Congress as an unlawful
assembly; and if he has the courage to act up to his convictions,
he will take the advice of his Rebel and Democratic friends and
disperse it when it again convenes, as he and his Southern allies
dissolved the New Orleans convention in blood. It is possible
that we are to have a rebellion, not " on the other end of the
line," but in the centre, — in the sacred citadel of the nation.
It is possible that he intends to fulfil his promise to make
treason " odious," by making himself the most conspicuous ex-
ample of public treachery. Whatever be the President's mean-
ing, the loyal people will not fail to remind him that he is not
the controller of Congress, but the executor of the laws, and
the same people who elevated him to his high place will, if
justice and liberty require it, let fall on him a bolt of condem-
nation which will settle forever the question that Presidents are
the servants, not the masters, of the American people.

And now let me examine the doctrine of the Philadelphia
Convention, that " the war left the rights and authority of the
Rebel States unimpaired." I meet this proposition with the
undeniable fact, that, when the Confederacy fell, the authority
of the Rebel States was not only " impaired," but utterly over-
thrown. I answer in the words of Andrew Johnson, "The Re-
bellion deprived North Carolina of all civil government " ; and
call attention to the fact, that he had appointed a provisional
government " to aid in rebuilding a State government and re-
storing North Carolina to her constitutional relations to the

238 NATIONAL POLITICS.

Union." I deny the assertion that representation is an inalien-
able right I repudiate the atrocious doctrine that Rebels in
arms are entitled to a voice in the government which they are
fighting at the same time to destroy. While the Rebel army
was in winter quarters recruiting for the next campaign, Lee
and Johnston, Breckinridge and Bragg, Taylor and Forrest,
might have taken seats in Congress, or if not these, then others
who had never been brave enough to take such public part in
the Rebellion as to prevent their taking the test oath; and
then this might have added enough votes to the Democratic
strength in the Thirty-eighth Congress to control the action of
that body, and assure the success of the Rebellion.

I do not adopt the doctrine that the Rebel States were out
of the* Union; but I hold, in the language of Abraham Lincoln,
that " by the Rebellion they destroyed their practical relations
to the Union." They did not relieve themselves from their ob-
ligations to the Union, but by treason and war they forfeited
their rights to life and property. It was for the victorious
government to say what mercy should be extended, what rights
should be restored.

It is the duty of the Congress of the United States, enjoined
by the Constitution, " to guarantee to every State in this Union
a republican form of government." For the correctness of this
position, I appeal to the solemn decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of the Dorr rebellion, in 1842.

" Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to de-
cide what government is the established one in a State. For as the
United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress
must necessarily decide what government is established in the State be-
fore it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the
Senators and Representatives of a State are admitted into the councils
of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are
appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper
constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other de-
partment of the government Unquestionably, a military govern-
ment, cstv'il)lishod as the permanent government of the State, would not
be a rei;)ublican government, and it would be the duty of Congress to
overthrow it." ^

I answer the doctrine of the Philadelphia Convention by the
fact that the President demanded three preliminary conditions

1 7 Howard, 42, 45.

NATIONAL POLITICS, 239

as indispensable to his recognition of the Rebel States to repre-
sentation in Congress. He demanded, —

1st. That these States should declare all their acts of Seces-
sion void from the beginning.

2d. That they should ratify the Constitutional Amendment
abolishing slavery.

3d. That they should repudiate all their debts contracted to
support the Rebellion.

The Philadelphia Convention says that representation is an
inalienable right, which the war did not impair. If this be true,
the President is condemned for imposing conditions.

But it may be claimed that the three conditions have been

complied with, that State governments have been established in

all the eleven States, and that Congress should have recognized

the fact I answer that, with the single exception of Tennessee,

not one of the constitutions of these States has been ratified

by the people of the States, or even submitted to them. Can

^at be called a republican government of a State which was

framed by a convention of pardoned Rebels under the dicta-

^^on of a military governor and the commander-in-chief of the

^'"rnies of the United States? But even if these governments

^*'ore lawful and republican in every respect, have the condi-

^'^^ns which the President demanded been so secured as to be-

c^rne *' irreversible guaranties"?

It is said that the legislatures have repudiated the Rebel

"^VdIs. May they not, a year hence, repeal the acts of repu-

^io^tion? It is said that the Civil Rights Bill is now a law,

^^d will give the freedmen adequate protection. Who docs not

^How that the President who vetoed, and his Democratic allies

^^'bo voted against the bill, will hasten to repeal it if they ever

regain the power in Congress? We will accept no securities

^vhich are based solely on the promises of perjured traitors. We

will accept as the basis of our future peace no mere acts or

resolves of Rebel convocations or Rebel legislatures. The

guaranties which the loyal millions of the republic demand

as conditions of restoration must be lifted above the reach

of traitors and Rebel States, and imbedded forever in the

imperishable bulwarks of the Constitution ; therefore, their

loyal representatives in the Thirty-ninth Congress proposed

an amendment to the Constitution, which, adopted by three

fourths of the States, will make liberty and union secure for

240 ' NATIONAL POLITICS,

the future. They have proposed that it shall be a part of the
Constitution, —

1st. That no State shall deny any person within its jurisdic-
tion the equal protection of the laws.

2d. That the representation of any State in Congress shall
be determined by the ratio which the male inhabitants of sucli
State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United
States, who are entitled by the laws thereof to vote, bears to
the whole number of such citizens in the State. So that just in
proportion as the right of suffrage is extended to the male citi-
zens twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States,
or is restricted, shall the representation be increased or dimin-
ished.

3d. That no person shall hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State, who, having pre-
viously taken an oath as an officer of the United States, or a
legislative, executive, or judicial officer of a State, to support
the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or com-
fort to the enemies thereof; but Congress may, by a vote of
two thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4th. The public debt of the United States shall never be re-
pudiated, and the Rebel debt shall never be paid.

5th. Congress shall have power to enforce these provisions
by appropriate legislation.

These propositions appeal to the common and moral sense
of the nation, as every way worthy to become a part of our fun-
damental law. They are conditions with which any State lately
in rebellion can comply without humiliation or disgrace; which
no State, if sincere in its professions of returning loyalty, would
hesitate to adopt. These conditions were cheerfully adopted b)*
the loyal men of Tennessee, though the President, seconded by
the Rebels in that State, made every possible eftbrt to prevent
it, and Congress immediately declared that State entitled to
representation, and the members elect were admitted to their
seats. These conditions embraced in the Constitutional Amend-
ment, and proposed to the late Rebel States, form the Congres-
sional policy. Whenever any other of the sinful eleven complies
with the same conditions, it can come in as did Tennessee.

And now, fellow-citizens, the two policies are before you. It
is for you to determine which shall be adopted as the basis of

NATIONAL POLITICS. 241

restoration and peace. In the settlement of these great issues,
you must vote with one of two parties, for there can be no third
party. The President has joined the Democratic party, and
that has joined with the Rebels of the South. The great Union
party and its glorious army kept the two parties apart for four
years and a half; we fired bullets to the front and ballots to the
rear; we conquered them both in the field and at the polls;
but now that our army is withdrawn, the two wings are reunited.
They joined in Philadelphia, and Andrew Johnson is their leader.
The great Union party now stands face to face with the motley
crew. With which will you cast in your lot, fellow-citizens?

Remember the noble history of the Union party. No party
ever had so proud a record. The Union party saved the repub-
lic from the most powerful and bloody conspiracy ever formed
since Satan fell from heaven. It broke the shackles from the
limbs of four million slaves, and redeemed the fair fame of the
nation. It carried its arms to victory on a thousand battle-
fields. It scattered every army that bore a Rebel banner. It
has enrolled among its members the old Republican party of
freedom; all the loyal Democrats who followed pouglas, or
loved their country more than their party ; all the soldiers who
suflfered and conquered. The tvvo hundred and fifty thousand
heroes who fell on the field of honor were Union men, and,
could they rise from their bloody graves to-day, would vote
with the Union party.

The Democratic party is composed of all who conspired to
destroy the republic, and of all those who fought to make
treason triumphant. It broke ten thousand oaths, and to its
perjury added murder, starvation, and assassination. It de-
clared through its mouthpieces in Ohio, in 1861, that if the
Union men of Ohio should ever attempt to enter a South-
ern State to suppress the Rebellion by arms, they must first
pass over the dead bodies of two hundred thousand Ohio
Democrats. In the mid-fury of the struggle it declared the
war a failure, and demanded a cessation of hostilities. In the
Democratic party is enrolled every man who led a Rebel army
or voluntarily carried a Rebel musket ; every man who resisted
the draft, who called the Union soldiers ** Lincoln's hirelings,"
" negro worshippers," or any other vile name. Booth, Wirz,
Harold, and Payne were Democrats. Every Rebel guerilla and
jay hawker, every man who ran to Canada to avoid the draft,

VOL. L 16

242 NATIONAL POLITICS.

eveiy bounty-jumper, every deserter, every cowardly sneak that
ran from danger and disgraced his flag, every man who loves
slavery and hates liberty, every man who helped massacre loyal
negroes at Fort Pillow, or loyal whites at New Orleans, every
Knight of the Golden Circle, every incendiary who helped burn
Northern steamboats and Northern hotels, and every villain, of
whatever name or crime, who loves power more than justice,
slavery more than freedom, is a Democrat and an indorser of
Andrew Johnson.

Fellow-citizens, I cannot doubt the issue of such a contest.
I have boundless faith in the lo3ral people, and I beseech you,
by all the proud achievements of the past five years, by the
immortal memories of the heroic dead, by the love you bore to
the starved and slaughtered thousands who perished for their
country and are sleeping in unknown graves, by all the high
and holy considerations of loyalty, justice, and truth, to pause
not in the work you have begun till the Union, crowned with
victory and established by justice, shall enter upon its high
career of freedom and peace.

RECONSTRUCTION.

REMARKS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON

VARIOUS OCCASIONS.

The scheme of Reconstruction proposed by the joint committee of the
two houses consisted of the Fourteenth Amendment, and two bills, enti-
tled, " A Bill to provide for restoring the States lately in Insurrection to
their full Political Rights," and " A Bill declaring certain Persons ineli-
gible to Office under the Government of the United States." The first
of these bills proposed that whenever the Fourteenth Amendment should
become part of the Constitution of the United States, and any State lately
in insurrection should have ratified the same, and should have modified
its Constitution and laws in conformity therewith, the Senators and Rep-
resentatives from such State, if found duly elected and qualified, might
after having taken the required oaths of office, be admitted into Congress
as such. The other bill requires no analysis. Neither one of these bills
was voted upon. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment alone was the
Congressional plan of reconstruction, in 1866 ; and, as Mr. Garfield states
in several of his speeches, the State political campaigns of that year were
conducted by the Republicans upon that platform.

In the mean time the Amendment had gone to the States for their
action. When Congress met in December, 1866, this was the view pre-
sented : all of the Rebel States but Tennessee had rejected the Amend-
ment ; Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky had likewise rejected it ;
twenty-one States had ratified it, and three had taken no action. The
States lately in rebellion took their action, as Mr. Garfield says more than
once, under the lead of President Johnson, and by the consent of the
Democratic party. More than a year before, the States had been " re-
constructed '* according to the ideas of the President, and fully organized
and equipped. State governments were now in existence and in opera-
tion in all those States.

ITie next step that the Republicans took was to bring forward and
carry through Congress the so-called " Military Reconstruction Meas-
ures " ; namely, " An Act to provide for the more efficient Government
of the Rebel States," March 2, 1867, and the "Supplemental Recon-

244 RECONSTRUCTION.

struction Act," March 23, 1867. These acts, both of which were carried
over the President's veto, swept away the so-called State governments in
the ten States, divided them up into military districts, each under a gen-
eral of the United States army, established a military government, and
made the restoration of the States conditional upon the ratification of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and the acceptance, so far as the ten States
were concerned, of negro suffrage. These acts, together with the various
supplemental acts passed from time to time, contain the plan upon which
the reconstruction of the ten States was finally effected.

The Reconstruction Act proper, March 2, 1867, entitled, "An Act to
provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States," having
declared in its preamble that " no legal State government, or adequate
protection for life or property, now exists in the Rebel States of Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisi-
ana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas," and that " it is necessary that peace
and good order should be enforced in said States until loyal and republi-
can State governments can be legally established," went on to enact :
(i.) "That said Rebel States shall be divided into [five] military dis-
tricts and made subject to the military authority of the United States."
(2.) That the President shall "assign to the command of each of said
districts an officer of the army not below the rank of brigadier-gen-
eral," to be supported by a sufficient military force. (3.) That it shall
be the duty of said officer " to protect all persons in their rights of per-
son and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence," etc.
(4.) That all persons put under mihtary arrest shall " be tried without
unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted."
(5.) "That when the people of any one of said Rebel States shall have
formed a constitution of government in conformity with the Constitution
of the United States in all respects, .... and when such constitution
shall be ratified, .... and when such constitution shall have been sub-
mitted to Congress for examination and approval, and Congress shall
have approved the same, and when said State, by a vote of its legislature
elected under said constitution, shall have adopted the amendment to
the Constitution of the United States proposed by the Thirty-ninth Con-
gress, and known as Article Fourteen, and when said article shall have
become a part of the Constitution of the United States, said State shall
be declared entitled to representation in Congress, and Senators and
Representatives shall be admitted therefrom on their taking the oaths pre-
scribed by law, and then and thereafter the preceding sections of this
act shall be inoperative in said State." (6.) " That until the people of
said Rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Con-
gress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein
shall be deemed provisional only." Such was the framework of this law :
the provisions concerning the qualifications of delegates and of electors

RECONSTRUCTION. 245

for delegates to the State conventions will be given after an analysis of the
act of March 27.

The Supplemental Act prescribed the minor steps to be taken by the
States in carrying out the plan, (i.) That by September i, 1867, the gen-
eral commanding iti any district shall cause the qualified voters in the
States composing his district to be registered. (2.) That in each State,
after thirty days' public notice, "an election shall be held of delegates to
a convention for the purpose of establishing a constitution and civil gov-
ernment for such State loyal to the Union." (3.) That the question of
holding a convention, as well as the election of delegates, shall be submit-
ted to the registered voters, and that a majority of those voting 'shall de-
cide whether a convention shall be called or not, " Provided^ that such
convention shall not be held unless a majority of all such registered voters
shall have voted on the question of holding such convention." (4.) That
if the vote be in the affirmative, the commanding general shall call the
delegates together in convention within sixty days after the election, and
said convention shall proceed to frame a constitution in harmony with
the Reconstruction Acts, which constitution shall be submitted to the
registered voters aforesaid for ratification. (5.) That if the constitution
shall be ratified by a majority of those voting, " at least one half of all
the registered voters voting upon the question of such ratification," said
constitution shall be forwarded to the President of the United States, to
be by him laid before Congress. (6.) That elections to carry out the
act of March 2, 1867, shall be by ballot.

These were the cardinal features of the Supplemental Act. The other
features need not be mentioned, further than to say that the whole ma-
chinery of conducting the elections — boards of registry, judges of elec-
tions, canvassing, and returns — was in the sole control of the general
commanding. There was considerable further supplementary legislation
on these subjects, partly to make plain what was obscure, partly to meet
new situations. For instance, it having been found difficult in some
cases to obtain the vote required on the question of calling a convention,
it was provided, March 11, 1868, that this question should "be decided
by a majority of the votes actually cast."

Such was the general reconstruction scheme as laid down in the Re-
construction Acts. It is necessary now to go back and inquire how these
acts constituted the State conventions.

First, the Fourteenth Amendment, together with the act of March 2,
fixed the qualifications of delegates to the constitutional convention.
Section 3 of the amendment provided : " No person shaU be a Senator
or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President,
or hold any office, civil or militar\', under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or
as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature.

246 RECONSTRUCTION.

or as an executive or judicial officer of any State^ to support the Consti-
tution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disa-
bility." And the act provided, " That no person excluded from the privi-
lege of holding office by said proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the United States shall be eligible to election as a member of the conven-
tion to frame a constitution for any of said Rebel States, nor shall any
such person vote for members of such convention."

Second, the act of March 2, 1867, fixed the qualifications of electors
for delegates to the conventions. The constitution in any State was to
be '' framed by a convention of delegates elected by the male citizens of
said State twenty-one years old and upward, of whatever race, color, or
previous condition, who have been resident in said State for one year
previous to the day of such election, except such as may be disfranchised
for participation in the Rebellion, or for felony at common law." Fur-
ther, the classes described in the third section of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment were disfranchised so far as these elections for delegates were
concerned : '* Nor shall any such person vote for members of such con-
vention." They could be neither delegates nor electors of delegates.
Still further, the commanding general in each district was required by
the Supplemental Act of March 27, 1867, to '' cause a registration to be
made of the male citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age
and upwards, resident in each county or parish of the State or States in-
cluded in his district, which registration should include only those persons
who are qualified to vote for delegates " by the act of March 2, " and
who shall have taken and subscribed the following oath or affirmation :

' I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), in the presence of Almighty

God, that I am a citizen of the State of ; that I have resided in

said State for months next preceding this day, and now reside in the

county of , or the parish of , in said State (as the case may be) ;

that I am twenty-one years old ; that I have not been disfranchised for
participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor for
felony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States ; that
I have never been a member of any State legislature, nor held any exec-
utive or judicial office in any State and afterwards engaged in insurrec-
tion or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Con-
gress of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or as a
member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of
any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, and after-
wards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support
the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the

RECONSTRUCTION. 247

best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God.* " Again,
according to the Supplemental Act, Section 4, only qualified electors for
convention delegates could vote on the question of ratification, when the
constitution was submitted to the people. " Said constitution shall be
submitted by the convention for ratification to the persons registered
under the provisions of this act, at an election to be conducted by the
officers or persons appointed or to be appointed by the commanding
general, or hereinbefore provided," etc.

Third, the care of Congress did not stop even here. The act of March 2
expressly stipulated that the constitution framed in any State " shall pro-
vide that the elective franchise shall be enjoyed by all such persons as
have the qualifications herein stated for electors of delegates." (Sec. 5.)
The basis of suffrage could be widened but not narrowed. More persons
could be allowed to vote, but those now allowed could not be denied.
The disfranchising features of the Reconstruction Acts need not be con-
tinued, but the grant of the ballot to non-disfiranchised male citizens
" twenty-one years old and upwards, of whatever race, color, or previous
condition," could not be withdrawn. No one can mistake the meaning
of this clause : Congress had now granted the elective franchise to the
negro, and was determined that neither State convention nor State legis-
lature should work an exclusion. Until a State should grant the ballot to
the freedmen, it would not be admitted to representation in Congress, and
would not be held reconstructed. But beyond all this, the acts to admit
the States to representation in Congress (see June 22 and June 25, 1868)
imposed upon them " the fundamental condition," that the constitution
of no one of them " should ever be so changed as to undo what had been
done in harmony with the above-recited provisions in respect to making
the suffrage independent of race, color, or previous condition." Beyond
this, it was impossible that national legislation should go. In the Rebel
States, therefore, there was no need of the Fifteenth Amendment, so far as
gaining the suffrage of the black man was concerned. Nor was there any
need, for this purpose, of the second section of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, which looked to gaining the suffrage by indirection. Hence, from
this point of view, the Fifteenth Amendment was superior to the Four-
teenth and to the Reconstruction Acts in these particulars. The first
put in the Constitution what the last put only in a simple statute ; the
first applied to all the States, the last only to those named jn the pream-
ble of the Reconstruction Act ; the first did openly and directly what the
last did in a roundabout manner. Except this guaranty to the colored
man, the State conventions and legislatures were to manage the suffrage in
their own way. Here it should be added that Congress paid no atten-
tion to President Johnson, who all the time was issuing proclamations of
amnesty, and granting pardons in harmony with his proclamation of May
29, 1865. It should also be observed, that the disabilities imposed by the

248 RECONSTRUCTION.

Fourteenth Amendment could be removed only by the national legisla-
ture. " But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each house, remove
such disability."

At various stages of the reconstruction legislation, Mr. Garfield made
the remarks that are here brought together. On the 8th of February,
1867, he spoke as follows : —

MR. SPEAKER, — In the short time allowed me I can say
very little. But I desire to call the attention of the
House to two or three points which, in my judgment, stand out
prominently, and which should control our action upon this
measure.

And, first, I call attention to the fact that, from the collapse
of the Rebellion to the present hour, the Congress of the United
States has undertaken to restore the States lately in rebellion
by co-operation with their people, and that our efforts in that
direction have proved a complete and disastrous failure. We
commenced, sir, by waiving nine tenths of all the powers we had
over these people, and adopting a policy most merciful and
magnanimous. It was clearly the right of the victorious gov-
ernment to indict, try, convict, and hang every rebel traitor in
the South for his bloody conspiracy against the republic. In
accordance with a law passed by the first Congress that met
under the Constitution, and approved by Washington, wc might
have punished with death by hanging every Rebel of the South.
We might have confiscated the last dollar of the last Rebel to
aid in paying the cost of the war. Or, adopting a more merci-
ful policy, we might have declared that no man who voluntarily
went into the Rebellion should ever again enjoy the rights of a
citizen of the United States. They forfeited every right of citi-
zenship by becoming traitors and public enemies. What the
conquering sovereign would do with them was for Congress to
declare.

Now, with all these powers in its hands. Congress resolved to
do nothing for vengeance, but everything for liberty and safety.
The representatives of the nation said to the people of the
South, " Join with us in giving liberty and justice to that race
which you have so long outraged, make it safe for free loyal
men to live among you, bow to the authority of our common
country, and we will forgive the carnage, the desolation, the
losses, and the unutterable woes you have brought upon the

RECONSTRUCTION, 249

nation, and you shall come back to your places in the Union
with no other personal disability than this, — that your leaders
shall not again rule us except by the consent of two thirds of
both houses of Congress." That was the proposition which this
Congress submitted at its last session ; and I am here to affirm
to-day that so magnanimous, so merciful a proposition has never
been submitted by a sovereignty to rebels since the day when
God offered forgiveness to the fallen sons of men.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not come up to the full
height of the great occasion ; it did not meet all that I desired
in the way of guaranties to liberty; but if all the Rebel States
had adopted it as Tennessee did, I should have felt bound to let
them in on the terms prescribed for Tennessee. I have also
been in favor of waiting, to give them full time to deliberate and
act. They have deliberated ; they have acted ; the last one of
the sinful ten has at last, with contempt and scorn, flung back
into our teeth the magnanimous offer of a generous nation ;
and it is now our turn to act. They would not co-operate
with us in rebuilding what they destroyed; we must remove
the rubbish and rebuild from the bottom. Whether they are
willing or not, we must compel obedience to the Union, and
demand protection for its humblest citizen wherever the flag
floats. We must so exert the power of the nation that it shall
be deemed both safe and honorable to have been loyal in the
midst of treason. We must see to it that the frightful carnival
of blood now raging in the South shall continue no longer. We
must make it possible for the humblest citizen of the United
States — from whatever State he may come — to travel in safety
from the Ohio River to the Gulf. In short, we must plant lib-
erty on the ruins of slavery, and establish law and peace where
anarchy and violence now reign. I believe, sir, the time has
come when we must lay the heavy hand of military author-
ity upon these Rebel communities, and hold them in its grasp
till their madness is past, and until, clothed and in their right
minds, they come bowing to the authority of the Union, and
taking their places loyally in the family circle of the States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this is a severe and strin-
gent measure. I do not hesitate to say that I give my assent
to its main features with many misgivings. I am not unmind-
ful of the grave suggestions of the gentleman from New York,^

1 Mr. Raymond.

2 50 RECONSTR UCTION.

in reference to the history of such legislation in other coun-
tries and other ages ; I remember, too, that upon the walls of
imperial Rome a Praetorian guard announced that the world was
for sale, and that the legions knocked down the imperial purple
to the highest bidder ; but I beg to remind the gentleman that
this is not a proposition to commit the liberties of the republic
into the hands of the military ; it is a new article of war, com-
manding the army to return to its work of putting down the
Rebellion, by maintaining the honor and keeping the peace
of the nation. If the officers of our army should need such a
suggestion, let them remember that no people on earth have
shown themselves so able to pull down their idols as the Amer-
ican people. However much honored and beloved a man may
be, if the day ever comes when he shows himself untrue to lib-
erty, they will pluck him out of their very hearts, and trample
him indignantly under their feet. We have seen this in the mil-
itary history of the last five years, and in the political history of
the last campaign.

Now, we propose for a short 'time to assign our army to this
duty for specific and beneficent purposes ; namely, to keep the
peace until we can exercise the high functions enjoined upon us
in the Constitution, of giving to these States republican gov-
ernments based upon the will of the whole loyal people. The
generals of our army enjoy in a wonderful degree the confi-
dence of the nation ; but if, for any cause, the most honored
among them should lay his hands unlawfully upon the liberty
of the humblest citizen, he would be trampled under the feet of
millions of indignant freemen. We are not, as some gentlemen
seem to suppose, stretching out helpless hands to the army for
aid ; we are commanding them, as public servants, to do this
work in the interest of liberty.

I have spoken only of the general purpose of this bill. I
now desire to say that I am not satisfied with the manner in
which it is proposed to pass it through this House. I demand
that it be opened for amendment, as well as for discussion. I
will not consent that any one man or committee in this House
shall frame a bill of this importance, and compel me to vote for
or against it, without an opportunity to suggest amendments to
its provisions. However unimportant my own opinions may
be, other men shall not do my thinking for me. There are
some words which I want stricken out of this bill, and some

RECONSTR UCTION. 2$ I

limitations I want added. I at least shall ask that they be con-
sidered. I trust the gentleman who has the bill in charge will
allow a full opportunity for amendment, and that the bill, prop-
erly guarded, may become a law.

On the 12th of February, Mr. Garfield spoke as follows, in reply to
Mr. Harding, of Kentucky : —

Mr. Speaker, — I would not ask the further attention of the
House upon this subject, were it not that I find myself very se-
riously misrepresented, here and elsewhere, in reference to my
remarks on Friday last. I would not have the worst Rebel in
the world suppose me capable of anything like malignity to-
ward even him. I therefore take this occasion to contradict the
representation made by the gentleman from Kentucky, (as I am
informed, for I did not hear him myself,) that I had declared
that, though I had hitherto been in favor of magnanimity to-
ward the people of the South, I was now in favor of enforcing
a bloodthirsty policy against them. I have never uttered such
a sentiment. All that I did say was said directly and explicitly
upon the single question of the Fourteenth Amendment as a
basis of restoration. I did say the other day, and I say now,
that if the amendment proposed at the last session of Con-
gress had been ratified by all the States lately in rebellion, in
the same way that Tennessee ratified it, and if those States
had done all the other things that Tennessee did, I should
have felt myself morally bound, (though it fell very far short
of full justice and of my own views of good statesmanship,)
and I believed the Thirty-ninth Congress would have been mor-
ally bound, to admit every one of the Rebel States on the same
terms.

Many members know that I have been opposed to taking fur-
ther decisive action until every Rebel State had had full oppor-
tunity to act upon the Amendment. Now that they have all
rejected it, I consider their action as final, and say, as I said
on Friday last, that that offer, as a basis of reconstruction, is
forever closed so far as my vote is concerned. The time has
come when we must protect the loyal men of the South ; the
time has come when fruitless magnanimity to rebels is cruelty

252 RECONSTRUCTION.

to our friends. No other victorious nation has ever so neglected
its supporters. For a quarter of a century the British govern-
ment gave special protection to the Tories of the American
Revolution, paying them fifteen million dollars out of the royal
treasury. What loyal man of any Rebel State, except Tennes-
see, has been honored or defended by the Federal government ?
It is a notorious fact, that it is both honorable and safe in the
South to have been a Rebel, while it is both dangerous and dis-
graceful for a Southerner to have been loyal to the Union.
Loyal men are every day perishing as unavenged victims of
Rebel malignity. I desire to say, also, that I am in favor of
placing these States under military jurisdiction only as a tem-
porary measure of protection, until republican governments can
be organized, based upon the will of all the loyal people, with-
out regard to race or color.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Kentucky volun-
teered to read me a lecture on bloodthirstiness, and reminded
me of the sinfulness of human nature as represented in myself,
I will volunteer a few suggestions and reflections to him and the
party with which he acts. I remind the gentleman that his
party and the President who leads it have had it in their power
any day during the last twenty-two months to close the bleed-
ing wounds of this grievous war, and restore the States lately in
rebellion to their proper places in the Union. I tell that gen-
tleman that if, on any one day during the war, he and his party
had risen up and said, honestly and unanimously, "We join the
loyal men of the nation to put down the Rebellion," the war
would not have lasted a twelvemonth. The army never feared
the enemy in its front; it was the enemy in the rear, with their
ballots and plots aj^ainst the Union and their sympathy with the
Rebellion, which continued the war and wasted and desolated
the land with blood and fire. That party is responsible for
more of the carnage of the war than anybody else this side of
the Rebels.

But, sir, the gentleman and his party have made a record
since the war ended. If the Democratic party, with the Pres-
ident at its head, had, on any day since July last, advised the
people of the South to accept the Fourteenth Amendment and
come in as Tennessee did, it would have been done. I have
information from a source entirely reliable, that but little more
than one month ago Alabama was on the eve of accepting that

RECONSTRUCTION. 253

Amendment when a telegram from Washington dissuaded her
from doing so and led her rashly to reject it. Of all men on
earth the gentleman and his party have the least right to preach
the doctrine of mercy to this side of the House. That mercy
which smiles only on murder, treason, and rebellion, and has
only frowns for loyalty and patriotism, becomes the gentleman
and his party.

I cannot agree with all that has just been said by my friends
on this side, that our own party in Congress have been so very
virtuous and true to liberty. I cannot forget that we have
learned very slowly ; I cannot forget that less than four years
ago the proposition to allow negroes any share in putting down
the Rebellion was received with alarm in this hall and even on
this side of the House. I cannot forget that less than five years
ago I received an order from my superior officer in the army
commanding me to search my camp for a fugitive slave, and if
found to deliver him up to a Kentucky captain, who claimed
him as his property ; and I had the honor to be perhaps the
first officer in the army who peremptorily refused to obey such
an order. We were then trying to save the Union without
hurting slavery. I remember, sir, that when we undertook to
agitate in the army the question of putting arms into the hands
of the slaves, it was said, " Such a step will be fatal, it will
alienate half our army and lose us Kentucky." By and by, when
our necessities were imperious, we ventured to let the negro dig
in the trenches, but it would not do to put muskets into his
hands. We ventured to let the negro drive a mule team, but it
would not do to have a white man or a mulatto just in front of
him or behind him ; all must be negroes in that train ; you must
not disgrace a white soldier by putting him in such company.
By and by some one said, " Rebel guerillas may capture the
mules ; so for the sake of the mules let us put a few muskets in
the wagons and let the negroes shoot the guerillas if they come."
So for the sake of the mules wc enlarged the limits of liberty a
little. By and by we allowed the negroes to build fortifications
and armed them to save the earthworks they had made, — not
to do justice to the negro, but to protect the earth he had
thrown up. By and by wc said in this hall that we would arm
the negroes, but they must not be called soldiers nor wear the
national uniform, for that would degrade white soldiers. By
and by we said, " Let them wear the uniform, but they must

254 RECONSTRUCTION.

not receive the pay of soldiers." For six months we did not
pay them enough to feed and clothe them ; and their shattered
regiments came home from South CaroHna in debt to the gov-
ernment for the clothes they wore. It took us two years to
reach a point where we were willing to do the most meagre jus-
tice to the black man, and to recognize the truth that —

" A man's a man for a* that.**

It will not do for our friends on this side to boast even of the
early virtues of the Thirty-ninth Congress. I remember very
well, Mr. Speaker, during the last session, that forty of us tried
to bring the issue of manhood suffrage before Congress. Our
friends said, " You are impracticable ; you will be beaten at the
polls if you go before the people on that issue ; make haste
slowly." Let us not be too proud of what we did at the last
session. For my part, I am heartily ashamed of our short-
comings and the small measure of justice we meted out to our
best friends in the South.

But, sir, the hand of God has been visible in this work, lead-
ing us by degrees out of the blindness of our prejudices to see
that the fortunes of the Republic and the safety of the party of
liberty are inseparably bound up with the rights of the black
man. At last our party must see that, if it would preserve its
political life, or maintain the safety of the Republic, we must
do justice to the humblest man in the nation, whether black or
white. I thank God that to-day we have struck the rock ; we
have planted our feet upon solid earth. Streams of light will
gleam out from the luminous truth embodied in the legislation
of this day. This is the ne plus ultra of reconstruction, and I
hope we shall have the courage to go before our people every-
where with ** This or nothing " for our motto.

Now, sir, as a temporary measure, I give my support to this
military bill, properly restricted. It is severe. It was written
with a steel pen made out of a bayonet ; and bayonets have
done us good service hitherto. All I ask is, that Congress shall
place civil governments before these people of the Rebel States,
and a cordon of bayonets behind them.

RECONSTRUCTION. 255

On the i8th of February, the House having under consideration the
Military Reconstruction Bill, with the Senate amendments, providing for
establishing civil governments in the Rebel States based upon manhood
suf&age, Mr. Garfield spoke as follows : —

Mr. Speaker, — The House will remember that I did what I
could when this bill was first before us to secure an amendment
which would open the way for restoring the Rebel States to
their practical relations to the Union, whenever they should es-
tablish Republican governments based on manhood suflfragc.
By the votes of Democratic members, the Blaine Amendment
failed here, but, by an almost unanimous vote, the Senate have
added some well-considered sections, which effect the same ob-
ject and make the bill more perfect than any yet proposed. It
is not all I could wish, but as we are now within a few hours of
the time when all the legislation of the Thirty-ninth Congress
will be wholly in the power of the President, we are compelled
to accept this or run the risk of getting nothing. Now what
does this bill propose? It lays the hands of the nation upon
the Rebel State governments, and takes the breath of life out of
them. It puts the bayonet at the breast of every Rebel mur-
derer in the South to bring him to justice. It commands the
army to protect the life and property of citizens, whether black
or white. It places in the hands of Congress absolutely and
irrevocably the whole work of reconstruction.

With this thunderbolt in our hands shall we stagger like idiots
under its weight? Have we grasped a weapon which we have
neither the courage nor the wisdom to wield? If I were afraid
of this Congress and the next, — afraid of my shadow, afraid of
myself, — I would declaim against this bill as gentlemen around
me have done. They have spoken vehemently, solemnly, se-
pulchrally, against it, but they have not done us the favor to
quote a line from the bill itself to prove that it has any of the
defects they charge. They tell us it proposes universal amnesty
to Rebels, but I challenge them to find the shadow of that
thought in the bill. They tell us it puts the State governments
into the hands of Rebels. I deny it unless I am a Rebel and
this is a Rebel Congress. They tell us it is a surrender to the
President, because it directs him to detail officers to command
the military districts. Mr. Speaker, I want this Congress to give
its commands to the President. If he refuses to obey, the im-
peachment-hunters need make no further search for cause of

256 RECONSTRUCTION.

action. There may be abundant cause now, but disobedience
to thb order will place it beyond all question, — our duty to im-
peach him will be plain and imperative.

Mr. Speaker, there are some gentiemen here who live in a
world far above my poor comprehension. They dwell with
eagles, — on mountain peaks, — in the region of perpetual frost ;
and in that ethereal air, with purged vision, they discern the lin-
eaments in the face of freedom so much more clearly than I do,
that sometimes when I and other common mortals here have
almost within our reach a measure which we think a great gain
to liberty, they come down and tell us our measure is low and
mean, — a compromise with the enemy and a surrender of lib-
erty. I remember an example of this at the close of the last
session. Many of us had tried in vain to put manhood suffrage
into the Fourteenth Amendment; but all knew that the safety
Qf the nation and the life of the Union party were bound up
in the passage of that Amendment in the shape it finally as-
sumed. At the last moment, when it was known that the
Union party in this body had determined to pass it, the pre-
vious question was withheld to allow these exalted thinkers to
denounce it as an unworthy, unstatesmanlike surrender. But
the House passed it, the Senate concurred, and the people ap-
proved it by the most overwhelming majorities known in our
political history.

The pending measure, Mr. Speaker, goes far beyond the
Fourteenth Amendment, and in addition to other beneficent
provisions it recognizes and secures forever the full political
rights of all loyal men in the Rebel States, without distinction
of race or color. If any gentleman can show me a greater
gain to liberty in the last half-century, he will open a chapter
of history which it has not been my privilege to read. But
these sublime political philosophers regard it as wholly unwor-
thy their high sanction.

Mr. Speaker, some of us are so irreverent as to begin to sus-
pect that the real reason for opposing this bill is to be found in
another direction. The distinguished gentieman from Pennsyl-
vania ^ made a remark this morning which may explain his op-
position. He complained that the Senate had forced upon us
the question of reconstruction, which our bill did not touch.
His course on this measure leads me to suspect that he does

1 Mr. Stevens.

RECONSTR UCTION. 257

not desire to touch the question of reconstruction. For my
part, I desire that these Rebel States shall be restored at the
earliest moment that safety and liberty will allow. The Amer-
ican people desire reconstruction. At the beginning of the war
the fiat of the nation went forth that the Union should not be
destroyed, — that the Rebel States should be brought back to
their places. To this end they fought and suffered ; to this end
they have voted and we have legislated. They demand that we
delay reconstruction until it can be done in the interest of lib-
erty. Beyond that they will tolerate no delay. Such a recon-
struction is provided for in this bill. I therefore give it my
cordial support.

On the 17th of January, 1868, Mr. Garfield made the following re-
marks upon a bill introduced by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, additional and
supplemental to the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867. The bill
passed the House, but never came to a vote in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, — I shall spend none of the few minutes
given to me in discussing the constitutionality or propriety
of the first section of this bill, which declares that the so-called
State governments in ten of the rebellious States that were set
up by the President without consent of the people thereof, and
without the authority of Congress, are neither republican in
form nor valid in law. Whatever may be the opinions of any
gentlemen here, the doctrine involved in that section was decid-
ed by the Thirty-ninth Congress, and that decision was ratified
by the people when the Fortieth Congress was elected. No
political issue was more clearly defined or more decisively set-
tled. Let me remind the House what that issue involved, and
what was decided by the result.

The President and his followers held that, though the Rebel-
lion had overthrown all civil government in the Rebel States,
yet he, as the head of the Federal government, had set up new
governments, which he deemed republican in form, and which
were therefore entitled to representation in Congress. Congress
denied the authority of the President to build State govern-
ments, and claimed that, by the decision of the Supreme Court,
it was made the duty of Congress to provide for carrying into
effect that clause of the Constitution which declares, "The

VOL. I. 17

2S8 RECONSTRUCTION.

United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a re-
publican form of government" Congress decreed that, until
the restoration shall be accomplished, the Rebel States shall be
held in the military grasp of the Republic; and, in order to
restore them at the earliest possible day, a law was passed ena-
bling the loyal people to form governments and build again
where rebellion had destroyed. Congress did not commit itself
to the dogma that those States were out of the Union, but it
proceeded upon the acknowledged fact that their civil govern-
ments were utterly destroyed and should be rebuilt The Con-
gressional plan and the President's plan were placed on trial
before the people in the fall of 1866. That the verdict was
against the Presidential and in favor of the Congressional plan,
is witnessed by the relative strength of the two parties on this
floor to-day. We are here to obey the people who sent us.
The first section of this bill is but a repetition, in clearer lan-
guage, of the law of the Thirty-ninth Congress. For all political
purposes, therefore, the doctrine of the first section is settled,
and the case is closed.

The only feature to which I desire to call the attention of the
House this morning is the second section of the bill. This sec-
tion makes it the duty of the General of the Army to assign
such officers of the army as he may think best to the work of
carrying out the reconstruction law. That work has heretofore
been placed in the hands of the President. Here we are met at
the threshold, by gentlemen on the other side, with the decla-
ration that Congress has no power to assign the General of the
Army and his subordinates to this duty, because of that clause
of the Constitution which makes the President Commander-in-
chief of the Army and Navy. I ask the attention of the House,
for a few moments, to the consideration of this objection.

Under the laws of Great Britain the king is not only Com-
mander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, but is empowered
to make rules and regulations for the government of the land
and naval forces of the realm. He can declare war and con-
clude peace. He is, therefore, in the full sense of the term,
commander-in-chief. The Parliament controls him chiefly by
its right to grant or withhold all supplies for the army and
navy. When our fathers framed the constitution of govern-
ment under which we live, they so far copied the British law
as to declare that the President of the United States should be

RECONSTR UCTION. 259

the Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy ; but they pro-
ceeded to limit and restrict that grant of power by six distinct
clauses in the Constitution, giving six distinct powers to Con-
gress. These clauses are found in the first article, section eighth,
and are as follows : —

" The Congress shall have power ....

" To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water ;

" To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that
use shall be for a longer term than two years ;

" To provide and maintain a navy ;

" To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces ;

" To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the
Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions ;

" To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and
for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the
United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the
officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress."

The power, therefore, which is conferred upon the President
by the declaration of the Constitution that he is Commander-in-
chief must always be understood with these limitations. With-
out the authority of Congress there can be no War Department,
no army, no navy. Without the authority of Congress there
can be no general of the army. Without the authority of Con-
gress there can be no officers, high or low, in the army or navy
of the United States. We therefore begin with these constitu-
tional limitations of the President's authority as Commander-in-
chief. Now, how has Congress used its power heretofore in
reference to the army? In 1789, by an act approved August 7,
Congress established a War Department, enacted laws to gov-
ern it, and from time to time thereafter established subordinate
departments and bureaus in that department.

Let it be noticed, also, that another clause of the Constitu-
tion may be applied here. Congress may authorize the heads
of departments to appoint inferior officers. It might have au-
thorized the Secretary of War to appoint every officer of the
army. It can do so now. It is plainly in our power to take
every military appointment from the President, and place it
solely in the hands of the Secretary of War. Congress did not

26o RE CONSTR UCTION.

choose to take that course, but it did establish all the subordi-
nate departments of the government, and prescribes the duties
of officers in those departments.

By an act of Congress, approved May 22, 181 2, the Quarter-
master-General is authorized to appoint barrack-masters. Now,
can the President appoint barrack-masters in contravention of
that law? Congress conferred that power upon the Quarter-
master-General, and the President, though Commander-in-chief,
cannot exercise that function without usurpation. The same
act requires quartermasters to give properly secured bonds be-
fore performing any of the duties of their appointment. Can
the President legally order them to perform such duty before
such bonds are given?

By a law of Congress approved April 10, 1806, it is declared
that " the Judge- Advocate, or some person deputed by him or
by the general or officer commanding the army, detachment, or
garrison, shall prosecute in the name of the United States.'* Can
the President of the United States prosecute an officer or pri-
vate before a court-martial? He cannot, because Congress has
conferred upon a subordinate officer of the army that power,
and the President, though Commander-in-chief, cannot set it
aside.

A friend near me says these are subordinates. I answer, that
the General of the Army of the United States is also a subordi-
nate. He is, to Congress, as subordinate as a judge-advocate, a
quartermaster, or a barrack- master. It makes no difference
how high his rank may be, he is none the less subordinate to
Cojigress. The President is Commander-in-chief, but he must
command in accordance with the Rules and Articles of War, —
the acts of Congress.

I call attention to the oath that every officer and enlisted man
takes before entering the army. It is in these words : '* I do
solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the United
States, .... and will observe and obey the orders of the
President of the United States, and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the
government of the army of the United States." Now, should
the President of the United States give to the humblest officer
of the army an order contrary to the Rules and Articles of War,
or to any law of Congress, the subordinate can peremptorily
refuse to obey, because the order has not been given in ac-

RECONSTR UCTION. 26 1

cordance with the rules and regulations of the power which
commands both him and the President. '

If Congress can make laws assigning special duties to subordi-
nate officers, such as judge-advocates, quartermasters, and bar-
rack-masters, what new doctrine is this that it may not also
assign special duties to the General of the Army? The volumes
of statutes are full of laws of Congress, commanding all classes
of officers to perform all kinds of duties. It is now proposed to
require of the General of the Army the performance of a special
duty, — the duty of directing the operations of that part of the
army which occupies the States lately in rebellion. If the gen-
eral should neglect this duty, the President, as Commander-in-
chief, can call him to account for such neglect, but he cannot
prevent his obedience to the law.

I now come to inquire why this legislation is needed. It is
because this Congress, in its work of restoring to their places
the States lately in rebellion, authorized the President to assign
the officers of the army to the duties prescribed in the law, and
the President has made such use of that authority as to obstruct
and delay the restoration of those States. Without violating
the letter of the law, he has been able, in a great measure, to
hinder its full and efficient execution. His acts and those
of his advisers are to-day the chief obstacles to the prompt
restoration of the Rebel States; and Congress proposes to
remove those obstacles, by transferring this authority to the
hands of one who has shown his loyalty to the country and his
willingness to obey the laws of the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the long catalogue of obstaic-
tions which the President has thrown in the way, by virtue of
the power conferred upon him in the reconstruction law of 1867 1
but I will allude to one example where he has found in a major-
general of the army a facile instrument with which more effect-
ually to obstruct the work of reconstruction. This case is all
the more painful, because an otherwise meritorious officer, who
bears honorable scars earned in battle for the Union, has been
made a party to the political madness which has so long marked
the conduct of the President. This general was sent into the
district of Louisiana and Texas with a law of Congress in his
hand, a law that commands him to see that justice is adminis-
tered among the people of that country, and that no pretence of
civil authority shall deter him from performing his duty; and

262 RECONSTRUCTION.

yet we find that officer giving lectures in the form of proclama-
tions and orders on what ought to be the relation between the
civil and military departments of the government. We see him
issuing a general order, in which he declares that the civil power
should not give way before the military. We hear him declaring
that he finds nothing in the laws of Louisiana and Texas to war-
rant his interference in the civil administration of those States.
It is not for him to say which should be first, the civil or the
military authority, in that Rebel community. It is not for him
to search the defunct laws of Louisiana and Texas for a guide
to his conduct. It is for him to execute the laws which he was
sent there to administer. It is for him to aid in building up
civil governments, rather than to prepare himself to be the Presi-
dential candidate of that party which gave him no sympathy
when he was gallantly fighting the battles of the country.

Some of our friends say, since the President is the chief obsta-
cle, remove him by impeachment. As the end is more impor-
tant than the means, so is the rebuilding of law and liberty on
the ruins of anarchy and slavery more important than the im-
peachment of Andrew Johnson. If, by placing the work in
other hands, it can be done more speedily than through the
slow process of impeachment, we shall so much sooner end the
reign of chaos in the South. Let no man suppose that, because
this House did not resolve to proceed .with impeachment, it
will abandon the loyal men of the South to the tender mercies
of Rebels, or to the insane policy of the President and his
party.

Mr. Speaker, the Union party will take no step backward in
this work of reconstruction. The policy inaugurated by the
Thirty-ninth Congress we are now carrying out. The State of
Tennessee has already been restored to its relations to the
Union. Alabama has prepared a constitution, and on the 4th
of February her loyal people will vote to adopt or reject it; and
before the middle of that month I expect to see her repre-
sentatives occupying seats in these halls. Seven of the Rebel
States are now holding conventions and framing constitutions
of government in pursuance of the laws of Congress; and in
the two remaining States, Florida and Texas, elections have been
ordered, and the people will soon vote for or against a conven-
tion. The work is going on; and, if there be no adverse action
to thwart it, before another twelvemonth we shall see most,

RECONSTRUCTION. 263

if not all, of these States completely restored. Who now is
opposing it? Gentlemen upon the other side are manifestly
arrayed with the President in endeavoring to obstruct the work
of reconstruction ; and without charging upon them Rebel sym-
pathies, or imputing to them any improper motives, I do say
that their conduct is pleasing to every unrepentant and un-
hanged traitor in the South. The whole mass of the Rebel
population are in favor of obstructing the reconstruction pol-
icy of Congress. There is not a man who went into rebellion
against the government, not a guerilla who shot down our
wounded soldiers in ambulances, not a man that burned our
cities and steamboats, not a man that starved our prisoners,
not a man who aided in the assassination of our President,
not a Rebel, from one end of the country to the other, who
is not to-day in sympathy with this party in Congress in its
attempts to obstruct and defeat the reconstruction policy of
Congress.

With such a combination against us, does any one suppose
that we can take one step backward, — much less, that we will
permit an officer of our army to fling back in our faces his
contempt of the law, and tell us what policy shall be adopt-
ed? It was reported in the public papers only yesterday, that
the Governor of Texas had informed General Hancock that
murderers in Texas could not be punished by the civil law.
Yet this general sends back word to the Governor of Texas,
that he docs not wish to interfere in any civil matters. Sir, he
was sent down there for the very purpose of interfering in such
matters as the non-punishment of murderers.

The first two paragraphs of Mr. Garfield's remarks on the bill admitting
Georgia to representation in Congress, made in the House, June 24,
1870, are also given.

Mr. Speaker, — I have been a listener for the last two years
to what has been said on the subject of reconstruction, and dur-
ing that time have rarely taken a part in these debates. We
have now reached a critical period in our legislation, when we
are called upon to perform the final act, — to complete, for bet-
ter or for worse, the reconstruction policy of the government.

264 RECONSTRUCTION.

I have followed the remarks of my colleague from Ohio,^ as well
as those of other gentlemen, and I confess that any attempt at
reconciling all we have done on the subject of reconstruction so
as to form consistent precedents for any given theory of legis-
lative action is, to my mind, a failure. There are no theories
for the management of whirlwinds and earthquakes. There are
no precedents for any of the great and sudden evils of society
which are themselves unprecedented.

While on the whole the historian will be able to trace a gen-
eral line of conduct not altogether inconsistent with itself, dur-
ing the last five or six years of our legislation on this subject, I
think he will find many anomalies in the course of that history.
For my part, I have never admitted the doctrine of State sui-
cide. I opposed that doctrine in 1864; I opposed it again in
1866, at a time when it was popular here and in the other end
of the Capitol ; and I am glad to know the settled policy of the
country has at last also condemned it. While we did not as a
nation admit the doctrine that States, by rebellion, could go out
of the Union and set themselves up as independent States ex-
cept by successful revolution, the nation nevertheless held and
asserted that, under the Constitution, we had the amplest power
to coerce by arms, and then to restore to its place in the Union,
any State that chose to destroy its organization, and rebel against
the government of the United States. In the exercise of those
high constitutional functions, we first put down the Rebellion,
and have since been setting up, one by one, the shattered pillars
of these States which the Rebellion attempted to demolish, and
thus to destroy the noble structure of the Union. It is now in
our hands to determine how Georgia, the last of the Rebel
States, shall be restored to her place in the great temple of
States.

1 Mr. Bingham.

COLLEGE EDUCATION.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE LITERARY SOCIETIES OF

HIRAM COLLEGE, HIRAM, OHIO.

June 14, 1867.

In the course of the school year 1866-67, the Trustees of the West-
em Reserve Eclectic Institute, at which Mr. Garfield had prepared for
college, of which he was Principal from 1857 to 186 1, and of which he
was now a Trustee, took steps to clothe the institution with the powers
and responsibilities of a college with its present name, Hiram College.
The transition was effected at the close of that year. The occasion was
recognized by the delivery of the following address. The facts now
stated — the change of the character and name of the school, and the
adoption of a new course of study — will explain some of Mr. Garfield's
remarks, especially towards the close of the address.

GENTLEMEN OF the Literary Societies, — I con-
gratulate you on the significant fact, that the questions
which most vitally concern your personal work are at this time
rapidly becoming, indeed have already become, questions of
first importance to the whole nation. In ordinary times, we
could scarcely find two subjects wider apart than the medita-
tions of a schoolboy, when he asks what he shall do with him-
self, and how he shall do it, and the forecastings of a great
nation, when it studies the laws of its own life, and endeavors to
solve the problem of its destiny. But now there is more than a
resemblance between the nation's work and yours. If the two
are not identical, they at least bear the relation of the whole to
a part.

The nation, having passed through the childhood of its his-
tory, and being about to enter upon a new life, based on a fuller
recognition of the rights of manhood, has discovered that liberty

266 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

can be safe only when the suffrage is illuminated by education.
It is now perceived that the life and light of a nation are insep-
arable. Hence the Federal government has established a Na-
tional Department of Education, for the purpose of teaching
young men and women how to be good citizens.

You, young gentlemen, having passed the limits of childhood,
and being about to enter the larger world of manhood, with its
manifold struggles and aspirations, are now confronted with the
question, " What must I do to fit myself most completely, not
for being a citizen merely, but for being all that doth become
a man living in the full light of the Christian civilization of
America? " Your disinthralled and victorious country asks you
to be educated for her sake, and the noblest aspirations of your
being still more imperatively ask it for your own sake. In the
hope that I may aid you in solving some of these questions, I
have chosen for my theme on this occasion, The Course of
Study in American Colleges, and its' Adaptation to the Wants
of our Time.

Before examining any course of study, we should clearly ap-
prehend the objects to be obtained by a liberal education. In
general, it may be said that the purpose of all study is two-
fold,— to discipline our faculties, and to acquire knowledge for
the duties of life. It is happily provided in the constitution of
the human mind, that the labor by which knowledge is acquired
is the only means of disciplining the powers. It may be stated
as a general rule, that if we compel ourselves to learn what we
ought to know, and use it when learned, our discipline will take
care of itself. Let us, then, inquire. What kinds of knowledge
should be the objects of a liberal education?

Without adopting in full the classification of Herbert Spen-
cer,^ it will be sufficiently comprehensive for my present pur-
pose to name the following kinds of knowledge, stated in the
order of their importance: —

First. That knowledge which is necessary for the full devel-
opment of our bodies and the preservation of our health.

Second. The knowledge of those principles by which the
useful arts and industries are carried on and improved.

Third. That knowledge which is necessary to a full compre-
hension of our rights and duties as citizens.

1 Education, Intellectual, Moral, and Physical, Chap. I., ** What Knowledge
is of most Worth ? "

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 267

Fourth. A knowledge of the intellectual, moral, religious,
and aesthetic nature of man, and his relations to nature and civ-
ilization.

Fifth. That special and thorough knowledge which is requi-
site for the particular profession or pursuit which a man may
choose as his life-work after he has completed his college
studies.

In brief, the student should study himself, his relations to
society, to nature, and to art; and above all, in all, and through
all these, he should study the relations of himself, society, na-
ture, and art, to God, the author of them all.

Of course it is not possible, nor is it desirable, to confine the
course of development exclusively to this order ; for truths are
so related and correlated that no department of the realm of
Truth is wholly isolated. We cannot learn much that pertains
to the industry of society, without learning something of the
material world, and the laws which govern it. We cannot study
nature profoundly without bringing ourselves into communion
with the spirit of art, which pervades and fills the universe. But
what I suggest is, that we should make the course of study
conform generally to the order here indicated ; that the student
shall first study what he most needs to know ; that the order of
his needs shall be the order of his work.

Now, it will not be denied that, from the day when the child's
foot first presses the green turf till the day when, an old man,
he is ready to be laid under it, there is not an hour in which he
does not need to know a thousand things in relation to his
body, — what he shall eat, what he shall drink, and wherewithal
he shall be clothed. Unprovided with that instinct which en-
ables the lower animals to reject the noxious and select the
nutritive, man must learn even the most primary truth that
ministers to his self-preservation. If parents were themselves
sufficiently educated, most of this knowledge might be acquired
at the mother's knee ; but, by the strangest perversion and mis-
direction of the educational forces, these most essential elements
of knowledge are more neglected than any other.

School committees would summarily dismiss the teacher who
should have the good sense and courage to spend three days of
each week with her pupils in the fields and woods, teaching
them the names, peculiarities, and uses of rocks, trees, plants,
and flowers, and the beautiful story of the animals, birds, and

1 1 ■;

266

COLLEGE EI

can be safe only when the su
It is now perceived that th
arable. Hence the Fedcr
tional Department of i
young men and woi^

You, young gcntl*
and being about t
manifold stru$r<'-
question, ''VN'

I '

..V, beauty. They will

...;. :hat undefended and

iivsical and intellectual

.^ J Silence, in a vain attempt

V L>rinted page, for six hours

,1 he finished his slaughter of

. ,> jtactice kills by the savagery

for being n
a man 1^^
Amcri
to lv_

\

^>* ■■«.

V ^

\ s »

...^v::cd to study? Besides the mass

..:tv:'i he is compelled to memorize, not

V. ».wcrstands, at eight or ten years of

.. :*'!!j;lish grammar, — one of the most

.:o metaphysical of studies, requiring a

and discipline to master it. Thus are

at worse than squandered — those thrice

> • .v»» '-he child is all ear and eye, when its eager

.^.,.uu*ie curiosity, hungers and thirsts to know the

-w .k >\ v»f the world and its wonderful furniture. We

X xuvvt clamor by cramming its hungry mind with

^^^ empty, meaningless words. It asks for bread,

• a ^tonc. It is to me a perpetual wonder that

. , X ^*\e of knowledge survives the outrages of the

'^ ,..w. li would be foreign to my present purpose to

»:;thei the subject of primary education ; but it is wor-

, , .Mv»knnulest thought, for ** out of it arc the issues of

I 'KiL man will be a benefactor of his race who shall teach

>,u iv* manage rightly the first years of a child's education.

^v, v».ie» vleelare that no child of mine shall ever be compelled

. x,.:J\ vMK* hour, or to learn even the English alphabet, before

V h^i.-* deposited under his skin at least seven years of muscle

\\ hat ate our seminaries and colleges accomplishing in the

wax v»J teaching the laws of life and physical well-being? I

^hvHild scarcely wrong them were I to answer, Nothing, — abso-

Uilclv n\»thing. The few recitations which some of the colleges

j^^^iiio in anatomy and physiology unfold but the alphabet of

\h\vie sciences. The emphasis of college culture does not fall

th**ri*. I'he graduate has learned the Latin of the old maxim,

^ms sana in corpore sano ; but how to strengthen the mind by

iV preservation of the body, he has never learned. He can

^iJl you in Xenophon's best Attic Greek, that Apollo flayed

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 269

the unhappy Marsyas, and hanged up his skin as a trophy; but
he has never examined the wonderful texture of his own skin,
or the laws by which he may preserve it. He would blush, were
he to mistake the place of a Greek accent, or put the ictus on
the second syllable of ^olus; but the whole circle liberalium ^..f^'
artiiun, so pompously referred to in his diploma of graduation,
may not have taught him, as I can testify in an instance person-
ally known to me, whether \A\cjg'umtm is a bone, or the humerus
an intestine. Every hour of study consumes a portion of his
muscular and vital force. Every tissue of his body requires its
appropriate nourishment, the elements of which are found in
abundance in the various products of nature ; but he has never
inquired where he shall find the phosphates and carbonates of
lime for his bones, albumen and fibrine for his blood, and
phosphorus for his brain. His chemistry, mineralogy, botany,
anatomy, and physiology, if thoroughly studied, would give all
this knowledge ; but he has been intent on things remote and
foreign, and has given little heed to those matters which so
nearly concern the chief functions of life. Yet the student
should not be blamed. The great men of history have set him
the example. Copernicus discovered and announced the true
theory of the solar system a hundred years before the circulation
of the blood was known. Though from the heart to the surface,
and from the surface back to the heart of every man of the race,
some twenty pounds of blood had made the circuit once every
three minutes, from the creation of the first man, yet men were
looking so steadily away from themselves that they did not ob-
serve the wonderful fact. Man's habit of thought has devel-
oped itself in all the courses of college study.

In the next place, I inquire, What kinds of knowledge are
necessary for carrying on and improving the useful arts and in-
dustries of civilized life ? I am well aware of the current notion
that these muscular arts should stay in the fields and shops, and
not invade the sanctuaries of learning. A finished education is
supposed to consist mainly of literary culture. The story of the
forges of the Cyclops, where the thunderbolts of Jove were
fashioned, is supposed to adorn elegant scholarship more grace-
fully than those sturdy truths which are preached to this gener-
ation in the wonders of the mine, in the fire of the furnace, in
the clang of the iron-mill, and the other innumerable industries
which, more than all other human agencies, have made our civil-

270 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

ization what it is, and are destined to achieve wonders yet un-
dreamed of. This generation is beginning to understand that
education should not be forever divorced from industry, — that
the highest results can be reached only when science guides the
hand of labor. With what eagerness and alacrity is industry
seizing every truth of science, and putting it in harness ! A few
years ago, Bessemer, of England, studying the nice affinities
between carbon and the metals, discovered that a slight change
of combination would produce a metal possessing the ductility
of iron and the compactness of steel, and which would cost but
little more than common iron. One rail of this metal will out-
last fifteen of the iron rails now in use. Millions of capital are
already invested to utilize this thought of Bessemer, which must
soon revolutionize the iron manufacture of the world.

Another example. The late war raised the price of cotton
and paper made of cotton rags. It was found that good paper
could be manufactured from the fibre of soft wood ; but it was
expensive and difficult to reduce the wood to pulp, without
chopping the fibre in pieces. A Yankee mechanic, who had
learned from the science of vegetable anatomy that a billet of
wood is composed of millions of hollow cylinders, many of them
so small that only the microscope can reveal them, and having
learned also the penetrative and expansive power of steam, wed-
ded these two truths in an experiment, which, if exhibited to
Socrates, would have been declared a miracle from the gods.
The experiment was very simple. Putting his block of wood in
a strong box, he forced into it a volume of superheated steam,
which made its way into the minutest pore and cell of the wood.
Then, through a trap-door suddenly opened, the block was
tossed out. The outside pressure being removed, the expand-
ing steam instantly burst every one of the million tubes ; every
vegetable flue collapsed, and his block of wood lay before him a
mass of fleecy fibre, more delicate than the hand of man could
make it.

Machinery is the chief implement with which civilization does
its work ; but the science of mechanics is impossible without
mathematics. But for her mineral resources England would be
only the hunting-park of Europe, and it is believed that her day
of greatness will terminate when her coal-fields are. exhausted.
Our mineral wealth is a thousand times greater than hers ; and
yet, without the knowledge of geology, mineralogy, metallurgy.

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 271

and chemistry, our mines can be of but little value. Without
a knowledge of astronomy, commerce on the sea is impossible ;
and now, at last, it is being discovered that the greatest of all
our industries, agriculture, in which three fourths of all our
population are engaged, must call science to its aid, if it would
keep up with the demands of civilization. I need not enumer-
ate the extent and variety of knowledge, scientific and practical,
which a farmer needs in order to reach the full height and
scope of his noble calling.

And what has our American system of education done for
this controlling majority of the people? I can best answer that
question with a single fact. Notwithstanding there are in the
United States one hundred and twenty thousand common
schools and seven thousand academies and seminaries, — not-
withstanding there are two hundred and seventy-five colleges
where young men may be graduated as bachelors and masters
of the liberal arts, — yet in all these the people of the United
States have found so little being done or likely to be done, to
educate men for the work of agriculture, that they have de-
manded, and at last have secured from their political servants in
Congress, an appropriation sufficient to build and maintain, in
each State of the Union, a college for the education of farm-
ers. This great outlay would have .been totally unnecessary,
but for the stupid and criminal neglect of college, academic,
and common-school boards of education to furnish that which
the wants of the people require. The scholar and the worker
must join hands, if both would be successful.

I next ask, What studies arc necessary to teach our young
men and women the history and spirit of our government, and
their rights and duties as citizens? There is not now, and
there never was on this earth, a people who have had so many
and weighty reasons for loving their country, and thanking
God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, as our own.
And yet seven years ago there was probably less strong, ear-
nest, open love of country in the United States than in any
other nation of Christendom. It is true that the gulf of anarchy
and ruin into which treason threatened to plunge us startled
the nation as by an electric shock, and galvanized into life its
dormant and dying patriotism. But how came it dormant and
dying? I do not hesitate to affirm, that one of the chief causes
was our defective system of education. Seven years ago there

2/2 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

was scarcely an American college in which more than four
weeks out of the four years' course was devoted to studying
the government and history of the United States. For this*
feature of our educational system I have neither respect nor tol-
eration. It is far inferior to that of Persia three thousand years
ago. The uncultivated tribes of Greece, Rome, Libya, and Ger-
many surpassed us in this respect. Grecian children were taught
to reverence and emulate the virtues of their ancestors. Our
educational forces are so wielded as to teach our children to ad-
mire most that which is foreign, and fabulous, and dead. I have
recently examined the catalogue of a leading New England col-
lege, in which the geography and history of Greece and Rome
are required to be studied five terms ; but neither the history
nor the geography of the United States is named in the college
course, or required as a condition of admission. The American
child must know all the classic rivers, from the Scamander to
the yellow Tiber ; must tell you the length of the Appian Way,
and of the canal over which Horace and Virgil sailed on their
journey to Brundusium ; but he may be crowned with bacca-
laureate honors without having heard, since his first moment
of Freshman life, one word concerning the one hundred and
twenty-two thousand miles of coast and river navigation, the six
thousand miles of canal, ^nd the thirty-five thousand miles of
railroad, which indicate both the prosperity and the possibilities
of his own country.

It is well to know the history of those magnificent nations
whose origin is lost in fable, and whose epitaphs were written a
thousand years ago ; but if wc cannot know both, it is far bet-
ter to study the history of our own nation, whose origin we can
trace to the freest and noblest aspirations of the human heart, —
a nation that was formed from the hardiest, purest, and most
enduring elements of European civilization, — a nation that, by
its faith and courage, has dared and accomplished more for the
human race in a single century than Europe accomplished in
the first thousand years of the Christian era.

The New England township was the type after which our
Federal government was modelled ; yet it would be rare to find
a college student who can make a comprehensive and intelligent
statement of the municipal organization of the township in which
he lives, and tell you by what officers its legislative, judicial, and
executive functions are administered. One half of the time

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 273

which is now almost wholly wasted in district schools on Eng-
lish grammar, attempted at too early an age, would be sufficient
to teach our children to love the republic, and to become its
loyal and life-long supporters. After the bloody baptism from
which the nation has arisen to a higher and nobler life, if this
shameful defect in our system of education be not speedily
remedied, wc shall deserve the infinite contempt of future gen-
erations. I insist that it should be made an indispensable con-
dition of graduation in every American college, that the student
must understand the history of this continent since its discovery
by Europeans ; the origin and history of the United States, its
constitution of government, the struggles through which it has
passed, and the rights and duties of citizens who are to deter-
mine its destiny and share its glory.

I Having^thus gained the knowledge which is necessary to life,.
healthy industry, and citizenship, the student] is prepared to
enter a wider and grander field of thought. It he desires that
large and liberal culture which will call into activity all his pow-
ers, and make the most of the material God has given him, he
^ust study deeply and earnestly the intellectual, the moral, the
religious, and the aesthetic nature of man] — his relations to na-
ture, to civilization past and present, and, above all, hi.s rela-
tions to God. These should occupy nearly, if not fully, half
the time of his college course. In connection with the philoso-
phy of the mind, he should study logic, the pure mathematics,
and the general laws of thought. In connection with moral
philosophy, he should study political and social ethics, a science
so little known cither in colleges or congresses. Prominent
among all the rest should be his study of the wonderful history
of the human race, in its slow and toilsome march across the
centuries; — now buried in ignorance, superstition, and crime;
now rising to the sublimity of heroism, and catching a glimpse
of a better destiny; now turning remorselessly away from, and
leaving to perish, empires and civilizations in which it had in-
vested its faith and courage and boundless energy for a thou-
sand years, and plunging into the forests of Germany, Gaul, and
Britain, to build for itself new empires, better fitted for its new
aspirations; and at last crossing three thousand miles of un-
known sea, anjd building in the wilderness of a new hemisphere
its latest and proudest monuments. To know this as it ought
to be known requires not only a knowledge of general history,

VOL. I. 18

274 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

but a thorough understanding of such works as Guizot's " His-
tory of Civilization " and Draper's ** Intellectual Development of
Europe," and also the rich literature of ancient and modern na-
tions. Of course, our colleges cannot be expected to lead the
student through all the paths of this great field of learning ; but
they should at least point out its boundaries, and let him taste
a few clusters from its richest vines.

Finally, in rounding up the measure of his work, the student
should crown his education with that aesthetic culture which
will unfold to him the delights of nature and art, and make his
mind and heart a fit temple where the immortal spirit of Beauty
may dwell forever. While acquiring this kind of knowledge,
the student is on a perpetual voyage of discovery, — searching
what he is and what he may become, how he is related to the
universe, and how the harmonies of the outer world respond to
the voice within him. It is in this range of study that he learns
most fully his own tastes and aptitudes, and generally deter-
mines what his work in life shall be.

The last item in the classification I have suggested, that spe-
cial knowledge which is necessary to fit a man for the particular
profession or calling he may adopt, I cannot discuss here, as it
lies outside the field of general education ; but I will make one
suggestion to the young gentlemen before mc who intend to
choose, as their life-work, some one of the learned professions.
You will commit a fatal mistake if you make only the same
preparations which your predecessors made fifty, or even ten
years ago. Each generation must have a higher cultivation than
the preceding one, in order to be equally successful ; and each
man must be educated for his own times. If you become a
lawyer, you must remember that the science of law is not. fixed,
like geometry, but is a growth which keeps pace with the pro-
gress of society. The developments of the late war will make
it necessary to rewrite many of the leading chapters of irttcr-
national and maritime law. The destruction of slavery and the
enfranchisement of four millions of colored men will almost rev-
olutionize American jurisprudence. If Webster were now at
the bar, in the full glory of his strength, he would be compelled
largely to reconstruct the fabric of his legal learning. Similar
changes are occurring both in the medical and military profes-
sions. Ten years hence the young surgeon will hardly venture
to open an ofiice till he has studied thoroughly the medical and

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 27s

surgical history of the late war. After our experience at Sum-
ter and Wagner, no nation will again build fortifications of costly
masonry ; for they have learned that earthworks are not only
cheaper, but a better defence against artillery. The text-books
on military engineering must be rewritten. Our Spencer rifle
and the Prussian needle-gun have revolutionized both the man-
ufacture of arms and the manual of arms ; and no great battle
will ever again be fought with muzzle-loading muskets. Napo-
leon, at the head of his Old Guard, could to-day win no Auster-
litz till he had read the military history of the last six years.

It may perhaps be thought that the suggestion I have made
concerning the professions will not apply to the work of the
Christian minister, whose principal text-book is a divine and
perfect revelation ; but, in my judgment, the remark applies to
the clerical profession with even more force than to any other.
There is no department of his duties in which he does not need
the fullest and the latest knowledge. He is pledged to the
defence of revelation and religion ; but it will not avail him to
be able to answer the objections of Hume and Voltaire. The
arguments of Paley were not written to answer the scepticism
of to-day. His ** Natural Theology " is now less valuable than
Hugh Miller's " Footprints of the Creator," or Guyot's lectures
on ** Earth and Man." The men and women of to-day know
but little, and care less, about the thousand abstract questions
of polemic theology which puzzled the heads and wearied the
hearts of our Puritan fathers and mothers. That minister will
make, and deserves to make, a miserable failure, who attempts
to feed hungry hearts on the dead dogmas of the past. More
than that of any other man it is his duty to march abreast of
the advanced thinkers of his time, and be, not only a learner, but
a teacher of its science, its literature, and its criticism. But I
return to the main question before me.

Having endeavored to state what kinds of knowledge should
be the objects of a liberal education, I shall next inquire how
well the course of study in American colleges is adapted to the
attainment of these objects. In discussing this question, I do
not forget that he is deemed a rash and imprudent man who
invades with suggestions of change these venerable sanctuaries
of learning. Let him venture to suggest that much of the wis-
dom there taught is foolishness, and he may hear from the
college chapels of the land, in good Virgilian hexameter, the

276 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

warning cry, "Procul, O procul este, profani ! " Happy for him
if the whole body of alumni do not with equal pedantry re-
spond in Horatian verse, " Fenum habet in cornu ; longe fuge."
But I protest that a friend of American education may suggest
changes in our college studies without committing profanation,
or carrying hay on his horns. Our colleges have done, and are
doing, a noble work, for which they deserve the thanks of the
nation ; but he is not their enemy who suggests that they ought
to do much better. As an alumnus of one which I shall always
reverence, and as a friend of all, I shall venture to discuss the
work they are doing.

I have examined the catalogues of some twenty Eastern,
Western, and Southern colleges, and find the subjects taught,
and the relative time given to each, about the same in all. The
chief difference is in the quantity of work required. I will take
Harvard as a representative, it being the oldest of our colleges,
and certainly requiring as much study as any other. Remem-
bering that the standard by which we measure a student's
work for one day is three recitations of one hour each, and
that his year usually consists of three terms of thirteen or
fourteen weeks each, for convenience' sake I will divide the
work required to admit him to college, and after four years
to graduate him, into two classes: first, that which belongs
to the study of Latin and Greek; and, second, that which
docs not.

Now, from the annual Catalogue of Harvard for 1866-67, I
find that the candidate for admission to the Freshman class
must be examined in eight terms' study in Latin, six in Greek,
one in ancient geography, one in Grecian history, and one in
Roman history, which make seventeen terms in the studies of
the first class. Under the second class the candidate is required
to be examined in reading, in common-school arithmetic and
geography, in one term's study of algebra, and one term of
geometry. English grammar is not mentioned. Thus, after
completing the elementary branches which are taught in all our
common schools, it requires about two years and a half of study
to enter the college ; and of that study seventeen parts are de-
voted to the language, history, and geography of Greece and
Rome, and two parts to all other subjects !

Reducing the Harvard year to the usual division of three
terms, the analysis of the work will be found as follows : not

Lt

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 277

less than nine terms of Latin (there may be twelve if the stu-
dent chooses it) ; not less than six terms of Greek (but twelve
if he chooses it) ; and three terms of Roman history if the stu-
dent elects it. With the average of three recitations per day,
and three terms per year, we may say that the whole work of
college study consists of thirty-six parts. Not less than fifteen
of these must be devoted to Latin and Greek, and not more
than twenty-one to all other subjects. If the student chooses,
he may devote twenty-four parts to Latin and Greek, and twelve
to all other subjects. Taking the whole six and a half years of
preparatory and college study, we find that, to earn a bachelor's
diploma at Harvard, a young man, after leaving the district
school, must devote four sevenths of all his labor to Greece
and Rome.

Now, what do wc find in our second, or unclassical list? It
is chiefly remarkable for what it does not contain. In the whole
programme of study, lectures included, no mention whatever is
made of physical geography, of anatomy, physiology, or the
general history of the United States. A few weeks of the Sen-
ior year given to Guizot, the history of the Federal Constitu-
tion, and a lecture on general history once a week during half
that year, furnish all that the graduate of Harvard is required
to know of his own country, and the living nations of the earth.
He must apply years of arduous labor to the history, oratory,
and poetry of Greece and Rome ; but he is not required to cull
a single flower from the rich fields of our own literature. Eng-
lish literature is not named in the curriculum, except that the
student may, if he chooses, attend a few general lectures on
modern literature.

Such are some of the facts in reference to the educational
work of our most venerable college, where there is probably
concentrated more general and special culture than at any other
in America. I think it probable, that in some of the colleges
the proportion of Latin and Greek to other studies may be less ;
but I believe that in none of them is the preparatory and col-
lege work devoted to these two languages less than half of all
the work required. Now, the bare statement of this fact should
challenge, and must challenge, the attention of every thoughtful
man in the nation. No wonder that men are demanding, with
an earnestness that will not be repressed, to know how it hap-
pens, and why it happens, that, placing in one end of the balance

278 COLLEGE EDUCATION,

all the mathematical studies, all the physical sciences in their re-
cent rapid developments, all the study of the human mind and the
laws of thought, all the principles of political economy and social
science which underlie the commerce and industry, and shape
the legislation of nations, the history of our own nation, its con-
stitution of government, and its great industrial interests, all the
literature and history of modern civilization, — placing all this,
I say, in one end of the balance, they kick the beam when
Greece and Rome are placed in the other. I hasten to say that
I make no attack upon the study of these noble languages as
an important and necessary part of a liberal education. I have
no sympathy with that sentiment which would drive them from
academy and college, as a part of the dead past that should
bury its dead. It is Xki^ proportion of the work given to them of
which I complain.

These studies hold their relative rank in obedience to the
tyranny of custom. Each new college is modelled after the
older ones, and all the American colleges have been patterned
on an humble scale after the universities of England. The
prominence given to Latin and Greek at the founding of these
universities was a matter of inexorable necessity. The continu-
ance of the same, or an>^vhcre near the same, relative promi-
nence to-day, is both unnecessary and indefensible. I appeal to
history for the proof of these assertions.

From the close of the fifth century we date the beginning of
those dark ages which enveloped the whole world for a thou-
sand years. The human race seemed stricken with intellectual
paralysis. The noble language of the Caesars, corrupted by a
hundred barbarous dialects, ceased to be a living tongue long
before the modern languages of Europe had been reduced to
writing. In Italy the Latin died in the tenth century; but the
oldest document known to exist in Italian was not written till
the year 1200. Italian did not really take its place in the family
of written languages till a century later, when it was crystallized
into form and made immortal by the genius of Dante and Pe-
trarch. The Spanish was not a written language till the year
1200, and was scarcely known to Europe till Cervantes con-
vulsed the world with laughter in 1605. The Latin ceased to
be spoken by the people of France in the tenth century, and
French was not a written language till the beginning of the
fourteenth century. Pascal, who died in 1662, is called the

COLLEGE EDUCATION, 279

father of modern French prose. The German, as a literary
language, dates from Luther, who died in 1546. It was one of
his mortal sins against Rome, that he translated the Bible into
the uncouth and vulgar tongue of Germany.

Our own language is also of recent origin. Richard I. of
England, who died in 1199, never spoke a word of English in
his life. Our mother tongue was never heard in an English
court of justice till 1362. The statutes of England were not
written in English till three years before Columbus landed in
the New World. No philologist dates modern English farther
back than 1500. Sir Thomas More, the author of ** Utopia,"
who died in 1535, was the father of English prose.

The dark ages were the sleep of the world, while the lan-
guages of the modern world were being born out of chaos.
The first glimmer of dawn was in the tA\'elfth century, when
in Paris, Oxford, and other parts of Europe, universities were
established. The fifteenth century was spent in saving the rem-
nants of classic learning which had been locked up in the cells
of monks, — the Greek at Constantinople, and the Latin in the
cloisters of Western Europe.

During the first three hundred years of the life of the older
universities, it is almost literally true, that no modern tongue
had become a written language. The learning of Europe was
in Latin and Greek. In order to study either science or litera-
ture, these languages must first be learned. European writers
continued to use Latin long after the modern languages were
fully established. Even Milton's great " Defence of the People
of England," which appeared in 165 1, was written in Latin, — as
were also the ** Principia," and other scientific works of New-
ton, who died in 1727. The pride of learned corporations, the
spirit of exclusivencss among learned men, and their want of
sympathy with the mass of the people, united to maintain Latin
as the language of learning long after its use ceased to be de-
fensible.

Now, mark the contrast between the objects and demands of
education when the European universities were founded, — or
even when Har\'ard was founded, — and its demands at the
present time. We have a family of modern languages almost
equal in force and perfection to the classic tongues, and a
modern literature, which, if less perfect than the ancient in aes-
thetic form, is immeasurably richer in truth, and is filled with

28o COLLEGE EDUCATION.

the noblest and bravest thoughts of the world. When the uni-
versities were founded, modern science had not been born.
Scarcely a generation has passed since then, without adding
some new science to the circle of knowledge. As late as 1809,
the Edinburgh Review declared that ** lectures upon political
economy would be discouraged in Oxford, probably despised,
probably not permitted." At a much later date, there was no
text-book in the United States on that subject. The claims of
Latin and Greek to the chief place in the curriculum have been
gradually growing less, and the importance of other knowledge
has been constantly increasing ; but the colleges have generally
opposed all innovations,' and still cling to the old ways with
stubborn conservatism. Some concessions, however, have been
made to the necessities of the times, both in Europe and Amer-
ica. Harvard would hardly venture to enforce its law (which
prevailed long after Cotton Mather's day) forbidding its students
to speak English within the college limits, under any pretext
whatever ; and British Cantabs have had their task of compos-
ing hexameters in bad Latin reduced by a few thousand verses
during the last century.

It costs me a struggle to say anything on this subject which
may be regarded with favor by those who would reject the
classics altogether, for I have read them and taught them with
a pleasure and relish which few other pursuits have ever afford-
ed me; but I am persuaded that their supporters must soon
submit to a readjustment of their relations to college study, or
they may be driven from the course altogether. There are most
weighty reasons why Latin and Greek should be retained as
part of a liberal education. He who would study our own lan-
guage profoundly must not forget that nearly thirty per cent
of its words are of Latin origin, — that the study of Latin is the
study of universal grammar, — that it renders the acquisition of
any modern language an easy task, and is indispensable to
the teacher of language and literature, and to other profes-
sional men. Greek is, perhaps, the most perfect instrument of
thought ever invented by man, and its literature has never been
equalled in purity of style and boldness of expression. As a
means of intellectual discipline, its value can hardly be over-
estimated. To take a long and complicated sentence in Greek,
to study each word in its meanings, inflections, and relations,
and to build up in the mind, out of these polished materials, a

COLLEGE EDUCATION. 281

sentence perfect as a temple, and filled with Greek thought
which has dwelt there two thousand years, is almost an act
of creation : it calls into activity all the faculties of the mind.
That the Christian oracles have come down to us in Greek,
will make Greek scholars forever a necessity.

These studies, then, should not be neglected: they should
neither devour nor be devoured. I insist they can be made
more valuable, and at the same time less prominent, than they
now are. A large part of the labor now bestowed upon them
is not devoted to learning the genius and spirit of the lan-
guage, but is more than wasted on pedantic trifles. In 1809
Sydney Smith lashed this trifling as it deserves in the Edin-
burgh Review. Speaking of classical Englishmen, he says : —

"Their minds have been so completely possessed by exaggerated
notions of classical learning, that they have not been able, in the great
school of the world, to form any other notion of real greatness. Attend,
too, to the public feelings ; look to all the terms of applause. A learned
man ! a scholar ! a man of erudition ! Upon whom are these epithets
of approbation bestowed ? Are they given to men acquainted with the
science of government, thoroughly masters of the geographical and com-
mercial relations of Europe ? to men who know the properties of bodies
and their action upon each other ? No : this is not learning ; it is chem-
istry, or political economy, not learning. The distinguishing abstract
term, the epithet of scholar, is reserved for him who writes on the -^olic
reduplication, and is familiar with the Sylburgian method of arranging

defectives in w and /xi His object [the young Englishman's] is

not to reason, to imagine, or to invent, but to conjugate, decline, and
derive. The situations of imaginary glory which he draws for himself
are the detection of an anapest in the wrong place, or the restoration of
a dative case which Cranzius had passed over and the never-dying Er-
nesti failed to observe. If a young classic of this kind were to meet the
greatest chemist, or the greatest mechanician, or the most profound po-
litical economist of his time, in company with the greatest Greek scholar,
would the slightest comparison between them ever come across his mind ?
Would he ever dream that such men as Adam Smith and Lavoisier were
equal in dignity of understanding to, or of the same utility as, Bentley or
Heyne? We are inclined to think that the feeling excited would be
a good deal like that which was expressed by Dr. George about the
praises of the great king of Prussia, who entertained considerable doubts
whether the king, with all his victories, knew how to conjugate a Greek
verb in /ai." ^

1 The Works of the Rev. Sydney Smith, (Boston, 1856,) p. 75.

282 COLLEGE EDUCATION.

He concludes another article,^ written in 1826, with these
words : " If there is anything which fills reflecting men with
melancholy and regret, it is the waste of mortal time, parental
money, and puerile happiness, in the present method of pur-
suing Latin and Greek."

To write verse in these languages ; to study elaborate theories
of the Greek accent, and the ancient pronunciation of both
Greek and Latin, which no one can ever know he has discov-
ered, and which would be utterly valueless if he did discover
it; to toil over the innumerable exceptions to the arbitrary
rules of poetic quantity, which few succeed in learning, and
none remember, — these, and a thousand other similar things
which crowd the pages of Zumpt and Kiihner, no more con-
stitute a knowledge of the spirit and genius of the Greek and
Latin languages, than counting the number of threads to the
square inch in a man's coat and the number of pegs in his
boots makes us acquainted with his moral and intellectual
character. The greatest literary monuments of Greece existed
hundreds of years before the science of grammar was born.
Plato and Thucydides had a tolerable acquaintance with the
Greek language ; but Crosby goes far beyond their depth. Our
colleges should require a student to understand thoroughly the
structure, idioms, and spirit of these languages, and to be able,
by the aid of a lexicon, to analyze and translate them with
readiness and elegance. They should give him the key to the
storehouse of ancient literature, that he may explore its treas-
ures for himself in after life. This can be done in two years
less than the usual time, and nearly as well as it is done now.

I am glad to inform you, young gentlemen, that the trustees
of this institution have this day resolved that, in the course of
study to be pursued here, Latin and Greek shall not be rc-
quircd after the Freshman year. They must be studied the
usual time as a requisite to admission, and they may be car-
ried farther than the Freshman year as elective studies; but in
the regular course their places will be supplied by some of
the studies I have already mentioned. Three or four terms in
general literature will teach you that the republic of letters is
larger than Greece or Rome.

The board of trustees have been strengthened in the position
they have taken, by the fact that a similar course for the future

* Hamilton's Method of Teaching Languages.

COLLEGE EDUCATION, 283

has recently been announced by the authorities of Harvard Col-
lege. Within the last six days, I have received a circular from
the secretary of that venerable college, which announces that
two thirds of the Latin and Greek are hereafter to be stricken
from the list of required studies of the college course. I rejoice
that the movement has begun. Other colleges must follow the
example ; and the day will not be far distant when it shall be
the pride of a scholar that he is also a worker, and when the
worker shall not refuse to become a scholar because he despises
a trifler.

I congratulate you that this change does not reduce the
amount of labor required of you. If it did, I should deplore it.
I beseech you to remember that the genius of success is still
the genius of the lamp. If hard work is not another name for
talent, it is the best possible substitute for it. In the long run,
the chief difference in men will be found in the amount of work
they do. Do not trust to what lazy men call the spur of the
occasion. If you wish to wear spurs in the tournament of life,
you must buckle them to your own heels before you enter the
lists.

Men look with admiring wonder upon a great intellectual
effort, like VV^ebster's reply to Hayne, and seem to think that it
leaped into life by the inspiration of the moment. But if by
some intellectual chemistry we could resolve that masterly
speech into its several elements of power, and trace each to
its source, we should find that every constituent force had been
elaborated twenty years before, — it may be, in some hour of
earnest intellectual labor. Occasion may be the bugle-call that
summons an army to battle ; but the blast of a bugle can never
make soldiers, or win victories.

And finally, young gentlemen, learn to cultivate a wise re-
liance, based not on what you hope, but on what you perform.
It has long been the habit of this institution, if I may so speak,
to throw young men overboard, and let them sink or swim.
None have yet drowned who were worth the saving. I hope
the practice will be continued, and that you will not rely upon
outside help for growth or success. Give crutches to cripples;
but go you forth with brave, true hearts, knowing that fortune
dwells in your brain and muscle, and that labor is the only
human symbol of Omnipotence.

— —

THE CURRENCY.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

May is, 1868.

What was the original view of the Legal Tender Act and the suspen-
sion of specie payments, was pointed out in the introduction to the
speech of March 16, 1866. That this view was still the current one at
the close of the war, is shown by the fact that the House of Representa-
tives, by a vote of 144 to 6, adopted the resolution of Dec. 18, 1865,
quoted in this speech.^ A further test of the same kind is found in
the act of April 12, 1866, which gave the Secretary of the Treasury
power to call in and cancel legal-tender notes, ten millions of dollars the
first six months, and after that at the rate of four millions per month.
But even at that time the effect of an inflated currency, and of ihe
general use of unredeemed promises as money, could be seen in many
ways. The public intelligence was becoming darkened, and the public
conscience hardened. Henceforth for several years a settled and deter-
mined popular movement in the direction of inflation can be traced.
Congress responded to popular opinion by enacting, January 23, 1868,
" That from and after the passage of this act the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to make any reduction of the currency, by
retiring or cancelling United States notes, shall be and is hereby sus-
pended." Since the passage of the act of April 12, 1866, the Secretary
of the Treasury had retired $44,000,000 of greenbacks. The act of
1868 took from him the power further to contract the currency, and
indefinitely postponed the return to specie payments. The proposition
to pay the five-twenty bonds in legal-tender notes had already been sub-
mitted to the public, and received with much favor. These extreme
financial doctrines were advocated upon the floor of Congress. Day by
day, the tide of folly and dishonor rose higher and higher. Hence, as
an attempt to check its higher rise, if possible to turn it back, Mr.
Garfield prepared and delivered the following speech. As the House
was in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, he was able

' See also note to speech of March 16, 1866, ante^ p. 200.

THE CURRENCY, 285

to handle his subject in the broadest way, and was not required to
deal with any particular measure. Accordingly, this is one of the most
expository of all his financial speeches, and comes nearer, perhaps, to
being a sound-money manual, than any other speech of his life.*

'* I cannot but lament from my inmost soul that lust for paper money which appears in some
parts of the United States ; there will never be any uniform rule, if there is any sense of justice,
nor any clear credit, public or private, nor any settled confidence in public men or measures,
until paper money is done away." — John Adams.

MR. CHAIRMAN, — I am aware that financial subjects are
dull and uninviting in comparison with those heroic
themes which have absorbed the attention of Congress for the
last five years. To turn from the consideration of armies and
navies, victories and defeats, to the long array of figures which
exhibit the debt, expenditure, taxation, and industry of the
nation, requires no little courage and self-denial ; but to those
questions we must come, and to their solution Congresses, politi-
cal parties, and all thoughtful citizens must give their best efforts
for many years to come. Our public debt, the greatest financial
fact of this century, stands in the pathway of all political parties,
and, like the Theban Sphinx, propounds its riddles. All the
questions which spring out of the public debt, — such as loans,
bonds, tariffs, internal taxation, banking, and currency, — pre-
sent greater difficulties than usually come within the scope of
American politics. They cannot be settled by force of numbers,
nor carried by assault, as an army storms the works of an enemy.
Patient examination of facts, careful study of principles which
do not always appear on the surface, and which involve the most
difficult problems of political economy, are the weapons of this
warfare. No sentiment of national pride should make us un-
mindful of the fact that we have less experience in this direction
than any other civilized nation. If this fact is not creditable to
our intellectual reputation, it at least affords a proof that our
people have not hitherto been crushed under the burdens of
taxation. We must consent to be instructed by the experience

^ It is proper to say that copies of this speech were sent to Europe by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, who hoped it might have a favorable effect upon American
credit abroid. Some of these copies came into the hands of influential members
of the Cobden Club, London, and led at once to Mr. Garfield's election to its
honorary membership.

286 THE CURRENCY.

of other nations, and be willing to approach these questions, not
with the dogmatism of teachers, but as seekers after truth.

It is evident that, both in Congress and among the people,
there is great diversity of opinion on all these themes. He is
indeed a bold man who, at this time, claims to have mastered
any one of them, or reached conclusions on all its features satis-
factory even to himself. For myself; I claim only to have studied
earnestly to know what the best interests of the country demand
at the hands of Congress. I have listened with great respect to
the opinions of those with whom I differ most, and only ask for
myself what I award to all others, a patient hearing.

The past six months have been remarkable for unparalleled
distress in the commercial and industrial interests of half the
civilized world. In Great Britain the distress among the labor-
ing classes is more terrible than the people of those islands have
suffered for a quarter of a century. From every city, town, and
village in the kingdom the cry of distress comes up through
every issue of the press. The London Times of December 1 1
says : " Last winter the demands on the public were unprece-
dented. The amount of money given to the poor of London
beyond that disbursed in legal relief of the poor was almost
incredible. It seemed the demand had reached its high-
est point ; but if we arc not mistaken, the exigencies of the
present season will surpass those of any former year in British
history." The London Star, of a still later date, says : " Men
and women die in our streets every day of starvation. Whole
districts are sinking into one vast, squalid, awful condition of
helpless, hopeless destitution."

From many parts of Continental Europe there comes a simi-
lar cry. A few weeks since, the Secretary of State laid before
this body a letter from the American Minister at Copenhagen,
appealing to this country for contributions for the relief of the
suffering poor of Sweden and Norway. A late Berlin paper
says, " Business is at a stand-still, and privation and suffering
are everywhere seen." The inhabitants of Eastern Prussia are
appealing to the German citizens of the United States for imme-
diate relief. In Russia the horrors of pestilence are added to
the sufferings of famine. In Finland the peasants are dying of
starvation by hundreds. In some parts of France and Spain
the scarcity is very great. In Northern Africa the suffering
is still greater. In Algiers the deaths by starvation are so

THE CURRENCY. 287

numerous that the victims are buried in trenches like the slain
on a battle-field. In Tunis eigjit thousand have thus perished
in two months. The United States Consul at that place writes
that on the 27th of December two hundred people starved to
death in the streets of that city, and the average daily deaths
from starvation exceed one hundred.

Our sadness at the contemplation of this picture is mingled
with indignation, when we reflect that at the present moment,
in the eight principal nations of Europe, there are three million
men under arms at an annual cost of nearly a thousand million
dollars, — an expense which in twenty years would pay every
national debt in Christendom. And this only the peace estab-
lishment! While Napoleon is feeding fifty thousand starving
Frenchmen daily from the soup kitchens of the imperial palace,
he is compelling the French legislature to double his army.
Whatever distress our people may be suffering, they have reason
to be thankful that the bloody monster called the "balance of
power" has never cast its shadow upon our country. We have
reason, indeed, to be thankful that our people are suffering less
than the people of any other nation. But the distress here is
unusual for us. It is seen in the depression of business, the
stagnation of trade, the high price of provisions, and the great
difficulty which laboring men encounter in finding employment.
It is said that during the past winter seventy-five thousand
laborers in New York City have been unable to find employ-
ment The whole industry of the States lately in rebellion is
paralyzed, and in many localities the cry of hunger is heard.
It is the imperative duty of Congress to ascertain the cause
of this derangement of our industrial forces, and apply whatever
remedy legislation can afford. The field is a broad one, the
subject is many-sided ; but our first step should be to ascertain
the facts of our situation.

I shall direct my remarks on this occasion to but one fea-
ture of our legislation. I propose to discuss the currency,
and its relation to the revenue and business prosperity of the
country.

In April, 1861, there began in this country an industrial
revolution, not yet completed, as gigantic in its proportions
and as far-reaching in its consequences as the political and
military revolution through which we have passed. As the
first step to any intelligent discussion of the currency, it is

288 THE CURRENCY.

necessary to examine the character and progress of that indus-
trial revolution. ^

The year i860 was one of remarkable prosperity in all
branches ot business. For seventy years no Federal tax-
gatherer had been seen among the laboring population of the
United States. Our public debt was less than sixty-five million
dollars. The annual expenditures of the government, including
interest on the public debt, were less than sixty-four million
dollars. The revenues from customs alone amounted to six
sevenths of the expenditures. The value of our agricultural
products for that year amounted to $i,625,ocx),ooo. Our cotton
crop alone was 2,155,000,000 pounds, and we supplied to the
markets of the world seven eighths of all the cotton consumed.
Our merchant marine, engaged in foreign trade, amounted
to 2,546,237 tons, and promised soon to rival the immense
carrying trade of England.

Let us now observe the effect of the war on the various
departments of business. From the moment the first hostile
gun was fired, the Federal and State governments became gi-
gantic consumers. As far as production was concerned, eleven
States were completely separated from the Union. Two mil-
lion laborers — more than one third of the adult population of
the Northern States — were withdrawn from the ranks of pro-
ducers, and became only consumers of wealth. The Federal
governrtient became an insatiable devourer. Leaving out of
account the vast sums expended by States, counties, cities,
towns, and individuals for the payment of bounties, for the
relief of sick and wounded soldiers and their families, and
omitting the losses — which can never be estimated — of prop-
erty destroyed by hostile armies, I shall speak only of ex-
penditures which appear on the books of the Federal Treasury.
From the 30th of June, 1 861, to the 30th of June, 1865, there
were paid out of the Federal treasury $3,340,996,21 1, making
an average for these four years of more than $836,000,000 per
annum.

From the official records of the Treasury Department it
appears that, from the beginning of the American Revolution
in 1775 to the beginning of the late rebellion, the total ex-
penditures of the government for all purposes, including the
Assumed war debts of the States, amounted to $2,250,000,000.
The expenditures of four years of the rebellion were nearly

THE CURRENCY. 289

$i,ioo,ocx>,(XX) more than all the Federal expenses since the
Declaration of Independence. The debt of England, which
had its origin in the Revolution of 1688, and was increased by
more than one hundred years of war and other political disas-
ters, had reached in 1793 the sum of $1,268,000,000. During
the twenty-two years that followed, while England was engaged
in a life and death struggle with Napoleon, $3,056,000,000 was
added to her debt. In four years we spent $300,000,000 more
than the amount by which England increased her debt in twenty-
two years of war, — almost as much as she had increased it in
one hundred and twenty-five years of war. Now, the enormous
demand which this expenditure created for all the products of
industry stimulated to an unparalleled degree every depart-
ment of business. Plough, furnace, mill, loom, railroad, steam-
boat, telegraph, — all were driven to their utmost capacity.
Warehouses were emptied; and the great reserves of supply,
which all nations in a normal state keep on hand, were ex-
hausted to meet the demands of the great consumer. For many
months the government swallowed three millions per day of the
products of industry. Under the pressure of this demand, prices
rose rapidly in every department of business. Labor everywhere
found quick and abundant returns. Old debts were cancelled,
and great fortunes were made.

For the transaction of this enormous business an increased
amount of currency was needed ; but I doubt if any member
of this House can be found bold enough to deny that the
deluge of treasury notes poured upon the country during the
war was far greater than even the great demands of business.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that the chief object of these
issues was not to increase the currency of the country. They
were authorized with great reluctance and under the pressure
of ovenvhelming necessity, as a temporary expedient to meet
the demands of the treasury. They were really forced loans
in the form of treasury notes. By the act of July 17, 1861,
an issue of demand notes was authorized to the amount of
$50,000,000. By the act of August 5, 1861, this amount was
increased $50,000,000 more. By the act of February 25, 1862,
an additional issue of $150,000,000 was authorized. On the
17th of the same month an unlimited issue of fractional cur-
rency was authorized. On the 17th of January, 1863, an issue

of $150,000,000 more was authorized, which was increased
voL.»i. 19

,')^i*»

290 THE CURRENCY.

$50,ocx),(XX) by the act of March 3 of the same year. This
act also authorized the issue of one and two years' Treasury
notes, bearing interest at five per cent, to be a legal tender for
their face, to the amount of $400,ocx),ooo. By the act of June
30, 1864, an issue of six per cent compound-interest notes, to
be a legal tender for their face, was authorized, to the amount
of $200,000,000. In addition to this, many other forms of
paper obligation were authorized, which, though not a legal
tender, performed many of the functions of currency. By the
act of March i, 1862, the issue of an unlimited amount of cer-
tificates of indebtedness was authorized, and within ninety days
after the passage of the act, there had been issued and were
outstanding of these certificates more than $156,000,000. Of
course these issues were not all outstanding at the same time,
but the acts show how great was the necessity for loans during
the war.

The law which made the vast volume of United States notes
a legal tender operated as an act of general bankruptcy. The
man who loaned $1,000 in July, 1861, payable in three years,
was compelled by this law to accept at maturity, as a full dis-
charge of the debt, an amount of currency equal in value to
$350 of the money he loaned. Private indebtedness was every-
where cancelled. Rising prices increased the profits of business ;
but this prosperity was caused by the great demand for pro-
ducts, and not by the abundance of paper money. As a means
of transacting the vast business of the country, a great volume
of currency was indispensable; and its importance cannot be
well overestimated. But let us not be led into the fatal error
of supposing that paper money created the business or pro-
duced the wealth. As well might it be alleged that our rivers
and canals produce the grain which they float to market. Like
currency, the channels of commerce stimulate production, but
cannot nullify the inexorable law of demand and supply.

Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored to trace the progress of
our industrial revolution in passing from peace to war. In
returning from war to peace all the conditions were reversed.
At once the government ceased to be an all-devouring con-
sumer. Nearly two million able-bodied men were discharged
from the army and navy, and enrolled in the ranks of the pro-
ducers. The expenditures of the government, which for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, amounted to $1,290,000,000,

THE CURRENCY. 291

were reduced to $520,cxx),cxx) in 1866, to $346,000,000 in 1867;
and, if the retrenchment measures recommended by the Special
Commissioner of the Revenue, be adopted, another year will
bring them below $300,000,000. Thus during the first year
after the war the demands of the Federal government as a
consumer decreased sixty per cent; and in the second year
the decrease had reached seventy-four per cent, with a fair
prospect of a still further reduction.

The recoil of this sudden change would have produced great
financial disaster in 1866, but for the fact that there was still
open to industry the work of replacing the wasted reserves of
supply, which in all countries in a healthy state of business are
estimated to be sufficient for two years. During 1866, the fall
in price of all articles of industry amounted to an average of
ten per cent. One year ago a table was prepared at my request
by Mr. Edward Young, in the office of the Special Commis-
sioner of the Revenue, exhibiting a comparison of wholesale
prices at New York in December, 1865, and December, 1866.
It shows that in ten leading articles of provisions there was an
average decline of twenty-two per cent, though beef, together
with flour and other breadstuffs, remained nearly stationary.
On cotton and woollen goods, boots, shoes, and clothing, the de-
cline was thirty per cent. On the products of manufacture and
mining, including coal, cordage, iron, lumber, naval stores, oils,
tallow, tin, and wool, the decline was twenty-five per cent. The
average decline on all commodities was at least ten per cent.
According to the estimates of the Special Commissioner of the
Revenue in his late report, the average decline during 1867 has
amounted to at least ten per cent more. During the past two
years, Congress has provided by law for reducing internal taxa-
tion $100,000,000; and the act passed a few weeks ago has
reduced the tax on manufactures by the amount of $64,000,000
per annum. The repeal of the cotton tax will make a further
reduction of $20,000,000. State and municipal taxation and
expenditures have also been greatly reduced. The work of
replacing these reserves delayed the shock and distributed its
effects, but could not avert the inevitable result. During the
past two years, one by one, the various departments of indus-
try produced a supply equal to the demand. Then followed a
glutted market, a fall in prices, and a stagnation of business by
which thousands of laborers were thrown out of employment.

^^ THE CURRENCY.

If to this it be added that the famine in Europe and the
viuMi^Kt in many of the s^cultural States of the Union have
kv|>< Uic price of provisions from falling as other commodities
haY« £adkii> we shall have a sufficient explanation of the stag-
OA^iott of business and the unusual distress among our people.

Thi^ industrial revolution has been governed by laws beyond
|hc reach of Congress. No legislation could have arrested it
4t ;iU)y stage of its progress. The most that could possibly be
J^.>1K'' by Congress was to take advantage of the prosperity it
vHN*aoncd to raise a revenue for the support of the government,
4IkI to nnitigate the severity of its subsequent pressure, by
ivxlucing the vast machinery of war to the lowest scale possible.
Manifestly, nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that
^hv^ abundance of currency produced the prosperity of 1863,
li^% and 1865, or that the want of it is the cause of our
^uvs&ont stagnation.

In onler to reach a satisfactory understanding of th6 currency
question, it is necessary to consider somewhat fully the nature
^nsl functions of money, or any substitute for it.

The theory of money which formed the basis of the " mer-
cantile system " of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries has
Uvn rejected by all leading financiers and political economists
\\\x the last seventy-five years. That theory asserted that
uuMU*y is wealth ; that the great object of every nation should
tu* to increase its amount of gold and silver ; that this was a
slireet increase of national wealth. It is now held as an indis-
|MitabIe truth, that money is an instrument of trade, and pcr-
|\nins but two functions. It is a measure of value and a medium
\if exchange.

In cases of simple barter, where no money is used, we esti-
nuite the relative values of the commodities to be exchanged
in dollars and cents, it being our only universal measure of
value. As a medium of exchange, money is to all business
transactions what ships are to the transportation of merchandise.
If a hundred vessels of a given tonnage are just sufficient to
carry all the commodities between two ports, any increase of
the number of vessels will correspondingly decrease the value
of each as an instrument of commerce ; any decrease below one
hundred will correspondingly increase the value of each. If the
number be doubled, each will carry but half its usual freight,
will be worth but half its former value for that trade. There is

L

THE CURRENCY. 293

so much work to be done, and no more. A hundred vessels can
do it all. A thousand can do no more than all. The functions
of money as a medium of exchange, though more complicated
in their application, are precisely the same in principle as the
functions of the vessels in the case I have supposed.

If we could ascertain the total value of all the exchanges
effected in this country by means of money in any year, and
could ascertain how many dollars* worth of such exchanges can
be effected in a year by one dollar in money, we should know
how much money the country needed for the business transac-
tions of that year. Any decrease below that amount will cor-
respondingly increase the value of each dollar as an instrument
of exchange. Any increase above that amount will corre-
spondingly decrease the value of each dollar. If that amount
be doubled, each dollar of the whole mass will perform but half
the amount of business it did before ; will be worth but half its
former value as a medium of exchange.* Recurring to our illus-
tration : if, instead of sailing-vessels, steam-vessels were substi-
tuted, a much smaller tonnage would be required ; so, if it were
found that $500,000,000 of paper, each worth seventy cents in
gold, were sufficient for the business of the country, it is equally
evident that $350,000,000 of gold substituted for the paper
would perform precisely the same amount of business.

It should be remembered, also, that any improvement in the
mode of transacting business, by which the actual use of money
is in part dispensed with, reduces the total amount needed by
the country. How much has been accomplished in this direc-
tion by recent improvements in banking, may be seen in the
operations of the clearing-houses in our great cities. The rec-
ords of the New York clearing-house show that from October
II, 1853, the date of its establishment, to October 11, 1867,
the exchanges amounted to nearly $180,000,000,000; to effect
which, less than $8,000,000,000 of money were used ; an aver-
age of about four per cent; that is, exchanges were made to
the amount of $100,000,000 by the payment of $4,000,000 of
money. It is also a settled principle, that all deposits in banks
drawn upon by checks and drafts really serve the purpose of
money.

The amount of currency needed in the country depends, as
we have seen, upon the amount of business transacted by means
of money. The amount of business, however, is varied by

294 '^^^ CURRENCY.

many causes which are irregular and uncertain in their opera-
tion. An Indian war, deficient or abundant harvests, an over-
flow of the cotton lands of the South, a bread famine or a war
in Europe, and a score of such causes entirely beyond the reach
of legislation, may make money deficient this year and abun-
dant next. The needed amount varies, also, from month to
month in the same year. More money is required in the au-
tumn, when the vast products of agriculture are being moved
to market, than when the great army of laborers are in winter
quarters, awaiting the seedtime.

When the money of the country is gold and silver, it adapts
itself to the fluctuations of business without the aid of legisla-
tion. If, at any time, we have more than is needed, the surplus
flows off to other countries through the channels of international
commerce. If less, the deficiency is supplied through the same
channels. Thus the monetary equilibrium is maintained. So
immense is the trade of the world, that the golden streams pour-
ing from California and Australia into the specie circulation are
soon absorbed in the great mass and equalized throughout the
world, as the waters of all the rivers are spread upon the sur-
face of all the seas. Not so, however, with an inconvertible
paper currency. Excepting the specie used in payment of cus-
toms and the interest on our public debt, we are cut off from
the money currents of the world. Our currency resembles
rather the waters of an artificial lake, which lie in stagnation or
rise to full banks at the caprice of the gate-keeper. Gold and
silver abhor depreciated paper money, and will not keep com-
pany with it. If our currency be more abundant than business
demands, not a dollar of it can go abroad ; if deficient, not a
dollar of gold will come in to supply the lack. There is no
legislature on earth wise enough to adjust such a currency to
the wants of the country.

Let us examine more minutely the effect of such a currency
upon prices. Suppose that the business transactions of the
country at the present time require $350,000,000 in gold. It
is manifest that if there are just $350,000,000 of legal-tender
notes, and no other money in the country, each dollar will per-
form the full functions of a gold dollar, so far as the work of
exchange is concerned. Now, business remaining the same, let
$350,000,000 more of the same kind of notes be pressed into
circulation. The whole volume, as thus increased, can do no

THE CURRENCY. 295

more than all the business. Each dollar will accomplish just
half the work that a dollar did before the increase ; but as the
nominal dollar is fixed by law, the effect is shown in prices be-
ing doubled. It requires two of these dollars to make the same
purchase that one dollar made before the increase. It would
require some time for the business of the country to adjust itself
to the new conditions, and great derangement of values would
ensue; but the result would at last be reached in all transac-
tions which are controlled by the law of demand and supply.

No such change of values can occur without cost Somebody
must pay for it. Who pays in this case? We have seen that
doubling the currency finally results in reducing the purchasing
power of each dollar one half; hence every man who held a
legal-tender note at the time of the increase, and continued to
hold it till the full effect of the increase was produced, suffered
a loss of fifty per cent of its value ; in other words, he paid a
tax to the amount of half of all the currency in his possession.
This new issue, therefore, by depreciating the value of all the
currency, cost the holders of the old issue $i75,ooo,cxx); and if
the new notes were received at their nominal value at the date
of issue, their holders paid a tax of $175,000,000 more. No
more unequal or unjust mode of taxation could possibly be de-
vised. It would be tolerated only by being so involved in the
transactions of business as to be concealed from observation ;
but it would be no less real because hidden.

But some one may say, " This depreciation would fall upon
capitalists and rich men who are able to bear it." If this
were true, it would be no less unjust. But, unfortunately, the
capitalists would suffer less than any other class. The new issue
would be paid in the first place in large amounts to the creditors
of the government; it would pass from their hands before the
depreciation had taken full effect, and, passing down step by
step through the ranks of middle-men, the dead weight would
fall at last upon the laboring classes in the increased price of all
the necessaries of life. It is well known that, in a general rise
of prices, wages are among the last to rise. This principle was
illustrated in the report of the Special Commissioner of the
Revenue for the year i866. It is there shown that from the
beginning of the war to the end of 1866 the average price of all
commodities had risen ninety per cent. Wages, however, had
risen but sixty per cent. A day's labor would purchase but two

296 THE CURRENCY.

thirds as much of the necessaries of life as it did before. The
wrong is therefore inflicted on the laborer long before his in-
come can be adjusted to his increased expenses. It was in view
of this truth that Daniel Webster said in one of his ablest
speeches : " Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring
classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that
which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effect-
ual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of
the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive
taxation, — these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of
the community, compared with a fraudulent currency and the
robberies committed by depreciated paper." ^

The fraud committed and the burdens imposed upon the
people, in the case we have supposed, would be less intolerable
if all business transactions could be really adjusted to the new
conditions; but even this is impossible. All debts would be
cancelled, all contracts fulfilled, by payment in these notes, —
not at their real value, but for their face. All salaries fixed by
law, the pay of every soldier in the army, of every sailor in the
navy, and all pensions and bounties, would be reduced to half
their former value. In these cases the effect is only injurious.
Let it never be forgotten that every depreciation of our cur-
rency results in robbing the one hundred and eighty thousand
pensioners, maimed heroes, crushed and bereaved widows, and
homeless orphans, who sit helpless at our feet. And who would
be benefited by this policy? A pretence of apology might be
offered for it if the government could save what the people lose.
But the system lacks the support of even that selfish and im-
moral consideration. The depreciation caused by the over-issue
in the case wc have supposed, compels the government to pay
just that per cent more on all the contracts it makes, on all the
loans it negotiates, on all the supplies it purchases; and to
crown all, it must at last redeem all its legal-tender notes in gold
coin, dollar for dollar. And yet the advocates of repudiation
have been bold enough to deny this !

I have thus far considered the influence of a redundant paper
currency on the country when its trade and industry are in a
healthy and normal state. I now call attention to its effect in
producing an unhealthy expansion of business, in stimulating
speculation and extravagance, and in laying the sure foundation

1 Works. Vol. III. p. 395.

THE CURRENCY. 297

of commercial revulsion and wide-spread ruin. This principle
is too well understood to require any elaboration here. The
history of all modern nations is full of examples. One of the
ablest American writers on banks and banking, Mr. Gouge, thus
sums up the result of his researches: "The history of all our
bank pressures and panics has been the same, in 1825, in 1837,
and in 1 843 ; and the cause is given in these two simple words,
universal expansion." And such is the testimony of all the
highest authorities.

There still remains to be considered the effect of depreciated
currency on our trade with other nations. By raising prices at
home higher than they are abroad, imports are largely increased
beyond the exports ; our coin goes abroad, or, what is far worse
for us, our bonds, which have also suffered depreciation, go
abroad, and are purchased by foreigners at seventy cents on the
dollar. During the whole period of high prices occasioned by
the war, gold and bonds have been steadily going abroad, not-
withstanding our tariff duties, which average nearly fifty per cent
ad valorem. More than five hundred million dollars of our bonds
are now held in Europe, ready to be thrown back upon us when
any war or other sufficient disturbance shall occur. No tariff
rates short of actual prohibition can prevent this outflow of gold
while our currency is thus depreciated. During these years, also,
our merchant marine steadily decreased, and our shipbuilding
interests were nearly ruined. Our tonnage engaged in foreign
trade, which amounted in 1859-60 to more than two and a half
million tons, had fallen in 1865-66 to less than one and a half
millions, a decrease of more than fifty per cent ; and prices of
labor and material are still too hfgh to enable our shipwrights
to compete with foreign builders.

From the facts already exhibited in reference to our industrial
revolution, and from the foregoing analysis of the nature and
functions of currency, it is manifest, —

1. That the remarkable prosperity of all industrial enter-
prise during the war was not caused by the abundance of cur-
rency, but by the unparalleled demand for every product of
labor.

2. That the great depression of business, the stagnation of
trade, the hard times which have prevailed during the past
year, and which still prevail, have not been caused by an insuffi-
cient amount of currency, but mainly by the great falling off of

2p8

THE CURRENCY.

the demand for all the products of labor compared with the
increased supply since the return from war to peace.

I should be satisfied to rest on these propositions without
further argument, were it not that the declaration is so often and
so confidently made by members of this House, that there is not
only no excess of currency, but that there is not enough for the
business of the country. I subjoin a table, carefully made up
from the official records, showing the amount of paper money
in the United States at the beginning of each year from 1834 to
1868, inclusive. The fractions of millions are omitted.

Millions.

Millions.

Millions.

Millions.

1834 . .

95

1843 •

• 59

1852 .

. 150

1861 .

202

183s . •

104

1844 .

• 75

1853 .

146

1862 .

. 218

1836 . .

140

1845 .

• 90

1854 .

205

1863 . .

529

1837 . .

- 149

1846 .

. 105

1855 .

. 187

1864 .

. 636

1838 .

. 116

1847 ■

. 106

1856 .

. 196

1865 .

948

1839 .

• '35

1848 .

. 129

1857 .

. 215

1866 .

. 919

1840 . .

. 107

1849 •

. 115

1858 .

• '35

1867 .

. 852

I84I .

. 107

1850 .

• 13'

1859 . .

'93

1868 .

767

1842 .

. 84

1851 .

• '55

i860 . .

207

To obtain a full exhibit of the circulating medium of the
country for these years, it would be necessary to add to the
above the amount of coin in circulation each year. This amount
cannot be ascertained with accuracy ; but it is the opinion of
those best qualified to judge that there was about $200,000,000
of gold and silver coin in the United States at the beginning
of the rebellion. It is officially known that the amount held
by the banks from i860 to 1863 inclusive averaged about
$97,000,000. Including bank reserves, the total circulation of
coin and paper never exceeded $400,000,000 before the war.
Excluding the bank reserves, the amount was never much above
$300,000,000. During the twenty-six years preceding the war,
the average bank circulation was less than $139,000,000.

It is estimated that the amount of coin now in the United
States is not less than $250,000,000. When it is remembered
that there are now $106,000,000 of coin in the Treasury, that
customs duties and interest on the public debt are paid in coin
alone, and that the currency of the States and Territories of the
Pacific coast is wholly metallic, it will be seen that a large sum
of gold and silver must be added to the volume of paper cur-
rency in order to ascertain the whole amount of our circula-
tion. It cannot be successfully controverted that the gold,

THE CURRENCY. 299

silver, and paper used as money in this country at this time
amount to $i,ooo,cxx),cxx). If we subtract from this amount our
bank reserves, — which amounted on the ist of January last to
$162,500,000, and also the cash in the national treasury, which
at that time amounted to $134,000,000, — we still have left in
active circulation more than seven hundred million dollars.

It rests with those who assert that our present amount of
currency is insufficient, to show that one hundred and fifty per
cent more currency is now needed for the business of the coun-
try than was needed in i860. To escape this difficulty, it has
been asserted by some honorable members that the country
never had currency enough, and that credit was substituted
before the war to supply the lack of money. It is a perfect
answer to this that in many of the States a system of free bank-
ing prevailed ; and such banks pushed into circulation all the
money they could find a market for.

The table I have submitted shows how perfect an index the
currency is of the healthy or unhealthy condition of business,
and that every great financial crisis for the period covered by
the table has been preceded by a great increase and followed by
a great and sudden decrease in the volume of paper money.
The rise and fall of mercury in the barometer is not more surely
indicative of an atmospheric storm than a sudden increase or
decrease of currency is indicative of financial disaster. Within
the period covered by the table there were four financial and
commercial crises in this country. They occurred in 1837,
1841, 1854, and 1857. Now observe the change in the volume
of paper currency for those years.

On the 1st day of January, 1837, ^^ amount had risen to
$149,000,000, an increase of nearly fifty per cent in three years.
Bef